Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsaber during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

You're telling me that if you had a light saber you wouldn't be switching it in and off again dozens of times a day just for the fzzzzh noise?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsaber during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

On that we agree. It weakened the character's position, in my opinion. "My reputation alone isn't strong enough to encourage you to play along; I must threaten you into submission!"

Of course, Maul wasn't a particularly subtle character even while he was assembling his criminal cartel. This... might actually be perfectly in character for him. Sigh.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsabre during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

I felt the same way too. Then I was talking with someone who really likes the SW movies but never watched any of the shows. He asked me if that was who he thought it was (Darth Maul). Apparently the only reason he recognized him at all as Maul and not just another alien of the same species was the lighting up the light sabre. I had to tell him about how he got his robot legs and what not.

Basically, it wasn't for us in the know. It was for everyone who didn't watch those shows.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're telling me that if you had a light saber you wouldn't be switching it in and off again dozens of times a day just for the fzzzzh noise?

I don't when anyone can see me!


Fun story: When I worked at Borders, we sold the $100 lightsabers that make noise when you hit things. Every time a customer so much as blinked towards one, employees would rush over to give demonstrations, usually duels that spilled up or down the stairs. The worst offender was the grandfatherly sales manager, who would keep on demonstrating how to use the lightsaber even long after the customer had stopped asking if he or she could have a turn and walked off.

Also, they were apparently super easy to steal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're telling me that if you had a light saber you wouldn't be switching it in and off again dozens of times a day just for the fzzzzh noise?

PS: You didn't describe the noise as a snap-hiss!!!!! Liked and subscribed.

 Manchu wrote:
Deliberately obstuse is the perfect description of an apologist defending a scene that confused most of the audience by pointing to ancillary cartoons and comics.

I mean, I both LOVED the film and already knew about this character’s unlikely resurrection, and even I can acknowledge the cameo was tone deaf vis a vis the general audience.

Well, here is the thing.

Solo, and I think side movies in general, really aren't targeted towards the general audience. Thats what the main storyline movies are for.

Solo is for the people who are into the deeper background. Same with Rogue One. Rogue One was dripping with references to the non-movie media, and assumed up front that you knew when it was set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsaber during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

On that we agree. It weakened the character's position, in my opinion. "My reputation alone isn't strong enough to encourage you to play along; I must threaten you into submission!"

Of course, Maul wasn't a particularly subtle character even while he was assembling his criminal cartel. This... might actually be perfectly in character for him. Sigh.

Nah, its perfectly in-character for a Sith/wanna-be/has-been Sith. Its all about asserting your power and dominance. A lightsabre is the perfect tool for that. Its a frighteningly powerful weapon wielded by people who, as far as the galaxy at large is concerned, are the stuff of legends, and probably the nightmares of anybody who comes in contact with them.

Same reason Darth Vader dramatically ignited his lightsabre when he boarded the ship in Rogue One. It would make more sense to have it ready before he got there, because you're going into a fight. But no! You must not only crush the enemy utterly, you must do it in the most grandiose and terrifying fashion possible! Also its why Darth Vader toyed with Luke during the duel on Bespin, and only got serious at the end. It was all about flair and intimidation rather than simply getting the job done.

Really the only Sith who ever shows any restraint and subtlety is the Emperor. Even Dookou was extremely dramatic in an over the top fashion, though it was aloof and dignified.

 Manchu wrote:
You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

So because I have yet to read Silmarillion that's not part of LOTR cannon?

The issue is not what is or isn’t canon. It’s whether the audience has enough information to understand important developments in the plot. I suspect Maul appears in Solo to set up a through-line connecting Solo, a Boba Fett film, and a movie about Obi-Wan. The reason he ignites his lightsaber is to tell the audience “this is a bad guy - see, he has a RED lightsaber.” In Star Wars, holograms are generally bluish. But Maul’s hologram specifically shows the lightsaber is red. I think it was also to make clear to people that this guy is that guy Darth Maul, remember from that Phantom Menace movie we haven’t talked about in a while. unfortunately, the last time most people saw this character he had been chopped in half. How or why he is alive in this movie was a mystery to a lot of people and, honestly, no one should have to look at wookiepedia to figure it out. It was a risky allusion but one the studio clearly felt would pay off in future spin-off films, as Maul seems to be set up in Solo as the main antagonist in those films.

Solo and R1 are definitely targeted at general audiences. You don’t spend hindreds of millions of dollars to make movies for people who closley follow TV shows, novels, or comics - nor could you expect that more niche audience to generate billions of dollars in ticket sales.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue is not what is or isn’t canon. It’s whether the audience has enough information to understand important developments in the plot. I suspect Maul appears in Solo to set up a through-line connecting Solo, a Boba Fett film, and a movie about Obi-Wan. The reason he ignites his lightsaber is to tell the audience “this is a bad guy - see, he has a RED lightsaber.” In Star Wars, holograms are generally bluish. But Maul’s hologram specifically shows the lightsaber is red. I think it was also to make clear to people that this guy is that guy Darth Maul, remember from that Phantom Menace movie we haven’t talked about in a while. unfortunately, the last time most people saw this character he had been chopped in half. How or why he is alive in this movie was a mystery to a lot of people and, honestly, no one should have to look at wookiepedia to figure it out. It was a risky allusion but one the studio clearly felt would pay off in future spin-off films, as Maul seems to be set up in Solo as the main antagonist in those films.

Solo and R1 are definitely targeted at general audiences. You don’t spend hindreds of millions of dollars to make movies for people who closley follow TV shows, novels, or comics - nor could you expect that more niche audience to generate billions of dollars in ticket sales.

You are giving the Maul thing more credit then it's due. I believe they said they had a lot of ideas on the table for who would be in the hologram. They settled on Maul because it would be cool. This is especially believable with how much changed with the reshoots. Entire actors, practical effects, and plot were changed.

The major unresolved question at the end of Solo is the identity of the overboss, who is revelaed to be Maul. As a crime lord, Maul could play a role in a Boba Fett movie. As the guy who killed Obi-Wan’s mentor, and whom Obi-Wan “killed,” he could play a role in an Obi-Wan movie. I don’t think they just threw Darth Maul in for gaks and giggles, considering his reveal is treated as a significant dramatic moment.

 Manchu wrote:
But that’s exactly the problem. People don’t go to movies to find out what happens after the events of some comic book.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue is not what is or isn’t canon. It’s whether the audience has enough information to understand important developments in the plot. I suspect Maul appears in Solo to set up a through-line connecting Solo, a Boba Fett film, and a movie about Obi-Wan. The reason he ignites his lightsaber is to tell the audience “this is a bad guy - see, he has a RED lightsaber.” In Star Wars, holograms are generally bluish. But Maul’s hologram specifically shows the lightsaber is red. I think it was also to make clear to people that this guy is that guy Darth Maul, remember from that Phantom Menace movie we haven’t talked about in a while. unfortunately, the last time most people saw this character he had been chopped in half. How or why he is alive in this movie was a mystery to a lot of people and, honestly, no one should have to look at wookiepedia to figure it out. It was a risky allusion but one the studio clearly felt would pay off in future spin-off films, as Maul seems to be set up in Solo as the main antagonist in those films.

Solo and R1 are definitely targeted at general audiences. You don’t spend hindreds of millions of dollars to make movies for people who closley follow TV shows, novels, or comics - nor could you expect that more niche audience to generate billions of dollars in ticket sales.

But as MDG says, that's a ludicrous standard, because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything, ever, since there's no guarantee someone's seen preceding films in the franchise either. It's also not just "some comic book" - Maul was brought back over multiple episodes of TCW years ago now, went on to have a substantial arc on the show, and was given another substantial arc on Rebels. Star Wars is a multimedia franchise and has been for decades, and if the creators fancy chucking in a few references that might confuse Billy Bob who saw Episode 1 once in 1999 and vaguely remembers seeing Maul "killed", that's their right and not their problem.

Also, it doesn't seem to factor into your scenario that some people who're momentarily confused might react to that confusion by seeking out and enjoying the stories that explain the gap(ie, probably the main reason they bothered to insert the lightsaber to emphasise that yes, casual cinemagoer, that's Maul in the first place).

EDIT: And hold on, your entirely plausible theory about why Maul was introduced even further undermines your point - the end of this film is the "shocking reveal" moment, then if he were to come back in future films as an antagonist you can throw a quick recap monologue/flashback sequence in there. "Oh wow, I thought he was dead!" doesn't need any more context in this film if he's planned to be a major part of the sequels(not that I believe it needs that even if he's not).

 Yodhrin wrote:


But as MDG says, that's a ludicrous standard, because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything, ever, since there's no guarantee someone's seen preceding films in the franchise either. It's also not just "some comic book" - Maul was brought back over multiple episodes of TCW years ago now, went on to have a substantial arc on the show, and was given another substantial arc on Rebels. Star Wars is a multimedia franchise and has been for decades, and if the creators fancy chucking in a few references that might confuse Billy Bob who saw Episode 1 once in 1999 and vaguely remembers seeing Maul "killed", that's their right and not their problem.

Also, it doesn't seem to factor into your scenario that some people who're momentarily confused might react to that confusion by seeking out and enjoying the stories that explain the gap(ie, probably the main reason they bothered to insert the lightsaber to emphasise that yes, casual cinemagoer, that's Maul in the first place).

EDIT: And hold on, your entirely plausible theory about why Maul was introduced even further undermines your point - the end of this film is the "shocking reveal" moment, then if he were to come back in future films as an antagonist you can throw a quick recap monologue/flashback sequence in there. "Oh wow, I thought he was dead!" doesn't need any more context in this film if he's planned to be a major part of the sequels(not that I believe it needs that even if he's not).

There is a difference between referencing previous films in a series and other media connected to those films.

For example, lets say the films are adaptations of a book series. Naturally, some of the stuff has to be cut in the transition from book to screen. By the logic of MDG, it would be perfectly acceptable for the second film to reference something that happened in the first book but which was cut and didn't appear in the first film. So, as an example, in The Two Towers Frodo and Sam talk about the time that Tom Bombadil saved them from the barrow wights and how he wasn't affected by the One Ring.

because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything

Once upon a time, before meta-referential cinematic universes, this is how movies were. No, for real! Movies used to be expected to tell a relatively novel, complete story in about 90-130 minutes. The result was movies like Alien, Predator, and Terminator. Now we have Alien: Covenant, The Predator, and Terminator: Genisys. Hooray?

OK well, I actually don’t want to get into a crotchety old man rant here. The Maul reference in Solo is a MCU trick. It’s a way of potentially connecting otherwise unrelated stories that take place in the same setting. But Maul is a risky pick because a lot of people, quite understandably, don’t even know who he is (hence the lightsaber gag) and many of those who do are like, but he died.

I recently came across a Star Wars character called something like Doctor Aphra. I have been a SW fan for a long time but I never heard of this character. So like people ITT suggest, I went to Wookiepedia and encountered this huge wall of text and, my God, it was impenetrable. I could not bring myself to care at all. Imagine hinging your thematic through-line in a loosely connected cinematic universe series of spin-offs, which cost about a billion dollars to make, to this kind of off-putting experience. This sassy line “it’s not the studio’s problem” is nonsense. Yes, of course it is the studio’s problem.

The fact that Lucasfilm felt like it had to reach for Darth Maul to fill this role feels like evidence that the Star Wars IP is smaller and more boring than I previously assumed.

Considering that the Star Wars IP has pretty much devolved around the actions of a single bloodline (and only really three generations of it, at that), I'd say it IS a lot smaller than you assumed.

That doesn't make it boring, necessarily.

Disney has now announced they are scaling on SW movies, focusing on the primary ones.

 Frazzled wrote:
Disney has now announced they are scaling on SW movies, focusing on the primary ones.

Smart move to slow down the release rate. There's no need to churn them out, the franchise has the legs for the long haul and releasing them at a sprinting pace risks oversaturating the market.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Disney has now announced they are scaling on SW movies, focusing on the primary ones.

Smart move to slow down the release rate. There's no need to churn them out, the franchise has the legs for the long haul and releasing them at a sprinting pace risks oversaturating the market.

Conversely, its a shame because the main arc ones have been gak and the side arc ones have been decent. I wasn't enthused for the Boba or Obi films that have been mooted but the current trilogy has really lessened my enthusiasm for the whole universe.

I’m still saddened by the box office performance of Solo. It didn’t deserve that.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m still saddened by the box office performance of Solo. It didn’t deserve that.

I will confess I didnt see Solo at the Theatre (the first film I dint since RotJ) and I do regret it, but I had no confidence after the other film and had heard such bad things I thought I would give it a miss. I watched the release of the BRay version and was really overall happy, a pretty decent film overall. But I am not going to see part 9 as I cant imagine for a second that it wont be gak.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well, here is the thing.

Solo, and I think side movies in general, really aren't targeted towards the general audience. Thats what the main storyline movies are for.

Solo is for the people who are into the deeper background. Same with Rogue One. Rogue One was dripping with references to the non-movie media, and assumed up front that you knew when it was set.

While I completely agree with this, the unfortunate truth is that Solo was expected to perform as well as something designed for the general audience and its failure is largely a failure of expectations.

Solo was greatly enjoyed by my wife and daughter, who know nearly nothing about Star Wars. They also enjoyed SW8.

In both cases for the obvious reasons that both films are exciting SF big screen with great SFX and blah blah blah (many people will disagree with this analysis, of course.)

I think the reasons for Solo's failure are nothing to do with it being a "side story" and thereby failing to attract a general audience. They are because it was too soon after SW8, and had to compete with several other major releases (super hero films etc.)

Also there is some evidence that superfans stayed away in order to punish Disney for the crime of SW8. (This may turn out to have been a strategic error.)

Coupled with reduced ticket sales, the fact that Solo was a very expensive production pushed it over the edge.

Disney's takeaway from this should be to produce fewer films and in particular to waste less money on reshooting them in the production phase. With modern filming, production re-shoots also lead to expensive post-production re-working of effects.

I don't think the release cadence has anything to do with the underperformance, although articles circulating online do confirm that's Disney's thinking.

I remain convinced the controversial reception to TLJ is the root cause, I think that killed enough enthusiasm in the fan base, either to not watch Solo at all or at least not worry about a cinema outing, that the box office got hurt. Compounded by the negative rumours that dogged the production, an already gun shy SW fan was never going to rush out and watch.

Which is a shame, the movie embodies what a SW movie should be about as well as any of the new batch, and deserved better. Here's to it doing well on home release.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


But as MDG says, that's a ludicrous standard, because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything, ever, since there's no guarantee someone's seen preceding films in the franchise either. It's also not just "some comic book" - Maul was brought back over multiple episodes of TCW years ago now, went on to have a substantial arc on the show, and was given another substantial arc on Rebels. Star Wars is a multimedia franchise and has been for decades, and if the creators fancy chucking in a few references that might confuse Billy Bob who saw Episode 1 once in 1999 and vaguely remembers seeing Maul "killed", that's their right and not their problem.

Also, it doesn't seem to factor into your scenario that some people who're momentarily confused might react to that confusion by seeking out and enjoying the stories that explain the gap(ie, probably the main reason they bothered to insert the lightsaber to emphasise that yes, casual cinemagoer, that's Maul in the first place).

EDIT: And hold on, your entirely plausible theory about why Maul was introduced even further undermines your point - the end of this film is the "shocking reveal" moment, then if he were to come back in future films as an antagonist you can throw a quick recap monologue/flashback sequence in there. "Oh wow, I thought he was dead!" doesn't need any more context in this film if he's planned to be a major part of the sequels(not that I believe it needs that even if he's not).

There is a difference between referencing previous films in a series and other media connected to those films.

For example, lets say the films are adaptations of a book series. Naturally, some of the stuff has to be cut in the transition from book to screen. By the logic of MDG, it would be perfectly acceptable for the second film to reference something that happened in the first book but which was cut and didn't appear in the first film. So, as an example, in The Two Towers Frodo and Sam talk about the time that Tom Bombadil saved them from the barrow wights and how he wasn't affected by the One Ring.

First of all - not in a multimedia franchise there isn't. If the creators say that the non-film elements are as valid and vital a part of the overall story as the films, they are, end of story, and they can reference any part of the overarching narrative they like.

Your comparison is a nonsense, because we're not talking about referencing material from a book that a film was adapted from, we're talking about referencing material from an entirely different story told within the same overall setting, but which some people have decided isn't allowed to be considered "proper" because it uses a different medium.

 Manchu wrote:

because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything

Once upon a time, before meta-referential cinematic universes, this is how movies were. No, for real! Movies used to be expected to tell a relatively novel, complete story in about 90-130 minutes. The result was movies like Alien, Predator, and Terminator. Now we have Alien: Covenant, The Predator, and Terminator: Genisys. Hooray?

OK well, I actually don’t want to get into a crotchety old man rant here. The Maul reference in Solo is a MCU trick. It’s a way of potentially connecting otherwise unrelated stories that take place in the same setting. But Maul is a risky pick because a lot of people, quite understandably, don’t even know who he is (hence the lightsaber gag) and many of those who do are like, but he died.

I recently came across a Star Wars character called something like Doctor Aphra. I have been a SW fan for a long time but I never heard of this character. So like people ITT suggest, I went to Wookiepedia and encountered this huge wall of text and, my God, it was impenetrable. I could not bring myself to care at all. Imagine hinging your thematic through-line in a loosely connected cinematic universe series of spin-offs, which cost about a billion dollars to make, to this kind of off-putting experience. This sassy line “it’s not the studio’s problem” is nonsense. Yes, of course it is the studio’s problem.

The fact that Lucasfilm felt like it had to reach for Darth Maul to fill this role feels like evidence that the Star Wars IP is smaller and more boring than I previously assumed.

You mean the wildly, overwhelmingly, monstrously successful MCU, that kind of "trick"? The MCU that continually throws in references to things that only dedicated, hardcore fans would pick up on, or which most audience members might only have the vaguest, most passing of familiarities with, and yet somehow manage to not collapse under an avalanche of riotously confused cinemagoers who just can't get over a minor moment of uncertainty? It's almost as if all this whole affair is evidence of is that you've taken a vaguely bizarre dislike to this one very specific thing and are wildly grasping for any justification other than "I just don't like it so there neener neener".

What a weird, irrelevant response.

MCU movies do have easter eggs meant to tickle fans who have mastered the trivia. But those easter eggs are not major plot points.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't think the release cadence has anything to do with the underperformance, although articles circulating online do confirm that's Disney's thinking.

I remain convinced the controversial reception to TLJ is the root cause, I think that killed enough enthusiasm in the fan base, either to not watch Solo at all or at least not worry about a cinema outing, that the box office got hurt. Compounded by the negative rumours that dogged the production, an already gun shy SW fan was never going to rush out and watch.

Which is a shame, the movie embodies what a SW movie should be about as well as any of the new batch, and deserved better. Here's to it doing well on home release.

I think it was mostly the second, all by its lonesome. Most of the irrationally angry fans who worked themselves into a frenzy probably actually did go see Solo, even if only to find more things to complain about.

But TLJ being a fairly dull, overly long and lackluster movie probably diminished some of the casual audience. But not as much as the pretty relentless media coverage that the production was constantly troubled and this that and the other director and the lead actor had to be spoon-fed dialogue and all the other accusations. That definitely had an impact, one that carried over to reviewers and from there to general audiences.

That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

 Manchu wrote:
What a weird, irrelevant response.

MCU movies do have easter eggs meant to tickle fans who have mastered the trivia. But those easter eggs are not major plot points.

And neither is this, as far as just about everyone except yourself seems to be concerned. You could excise the Maul appearance from Solo entirely and leave Qi'ra's boss implied, or replace him with any generic menacing baddie boss figure hologram, and have zero impact on the tale told within the confines of Solo - just because it wasn't actually placed midway through the end credits doesn't mean it's any more consequential to the plot of this film than Thor's Hammer or Stark sparring with General Ross in a bar, it's just a brief "oho, look what we have in store for you!" moment; to normal moviegoers it will say nothing more than "ooh, new baddie with a red saber", to casual fans it might prompt an "oh wait, I thought he was dead?" followed by some listicle site's "so&so Explained" article and then a TCW/Rebels binge, and for hardcore types who watch or at least keep up with everything it creates fuel for speculation about the potential for direct sequels or maybe a linked narrative thread through the Solo/Fett/Obi Wan films and so on.

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Agreed - exectly how i feel - my friends and I simply could not be bothered to watch Solo becuase I didn't want to waste money on it after TLJ.

Even after Bats vs Superman I wanted to see what tehy did because depsite Eisenstein trying everything he could to ruin that movie I liked elements - there was simply nothing good in the TLJ.

Contray to the oft repeated myth (repeated above) about "superfans" many of those who I spoke to who were not bothered either way about SW just thought it was a very bad movie.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What a weird, irrelevant response.

MCU movies do have easter eggs meant to tickle fans who have mastered the trivia. But those easter eggs are not major plot points.

And neither is this, as far as just about everyone except yourself seems to be concerned. You could excise the Maul appearance from Solo entirely and leave Qi'ra's boss implied, or replace him with any generic menacing baddie boss figure hologram, and have zero impact on the tale told within the confines of Solo - just because it wasn't actually placed midway through the end credits doesn't mean it's any more consequential to the plot of this film than Thor's Hammer or Stark sparring with General Ross in a bar, it's just a brief "oho, look what we have in store for you!" moment; to normal moviegoers it will say nothing more than "ooh, new baddie with a red saber", to casual fans it might prompt an "oh wait, I thought he was dead?" followed by some listicle site's "so&so Explained" article and then a TCW/Rebels binge, and for hardcore types who watch or at least keep up with everything it creates fuel for speculation about the potential for direct sequels or maybe a linked narrative thread through the Solo/Fett/Obi Wan films and so on.

This.

Entirely this.

So much this, I’ve actuallt agreed with Yodhrin on something :p

That’s pretty This!

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

So because I have yet to read Silmarillion that's not part of LOTR cannon?

Offtopic road!
Lot of the Tolkienists are of opinion that only Middle-Earth canon is the LOTR book and its appendices. Hobbit is seen un-canonical (in fact Tolkien edited it in later printings to make it bit more canonical). Silmarillion was put together by Christopher and Guy Kay and as published it was more like 'interpretation' of Tolkiens ideas.