The Star Wars Revival Was Always Headed in the Wrong Direction

WARNING: The following article contains major spoilers for Solo: A Star Wars Story, in theaters now.

One of the biggest talking points surrounding Solo: A Star Wars Story is the appearance of old Star Wars villain Darth Maul. First introduced in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, Maul (played in Solo by Ray Park and voiced by Peter Serafinowicz) was Palpatine's first Sith apprentice, whom the future emperor sent to capture Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman).

For a long time, fans believed that Maul met his gruesome end when he was sliced in two by Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) at the end of that film. However, he returned in the expanded universe and his resurrection was kept as canon when Disney acquired the Star Wars franchise, though slightly altered.

For those who haven't been paying attention to the comic books or animated television shows, Darth Maul's cameo in Solo might have come as a shock, which might have been the point. However, his return to the big screen does more than just surprise long time film fans, it also raises several questions about the direction of Star Wars proper, especially when you consider the fact that the last Star Wars Anthology film also included a cameo of a famous Sith Lord -- Darth Vader. Is it just a coincidence, or is this an indication that fans and filmmakers desire the return of the Sith to the Star Wars franchise?

Luke Skywalker vehemently believed that there was good in his father. He learned the ways of the Jedi, learned to use the Force and wield a lightsaber only to discard those skills in Return of the Jedi in favor of the compassion he had in him all along, which ultimately drew his father, Darth Vader, back from the seemingly inescapable grip of the dark side. Since Vader's last redemptive act was to hurl the Emperor down the Death Star reactor shaft, Luke had effectively brought balance to the Force and caused the collapse of the Sith since there was and could only ever be a master and an apprentice, according to the ancient Rule of Two.

Though the films never explicitly explain the Rule of Two, the expanded universe revealed that it was established by Darth Bane as a way to ensure the survival of the Sith. By limiting the order to one master and one apprentice, the Sith could function beneath the notice of the Jedi Order and the Republic. It's part of the reason why Darth Sidious was able to rise to the height of power so effortlessly, and it's the reason why Luke's actions ensured that there were no more Sith in the galaxy.

The end of Return of the Jedi was pretty conclusive, which means any film that followed, no matter how skilled its writers or how beloved its characters, was going to have trouble building a worthwhile story, especially since it now had the near-impossible task of introducing a villain as impactful and as cinematically striking as the Sith.

Enter the Knights of Ren and the First Order.

Page 2: [valnet-url-page page=2 paginated=0 text='Supreme%20Leader%20Snoke%20and%20Kylo%20Ren%20Aren%27t%20Sith%20-%20But%20They%20Might%20As%20Well%20Be']

Star Wars: The Force Awakens introduced Supreme Leader Snoke and Kylo Ren, who command the First Order and the mysterious Knights of Ren. At first glance, these two seem like two new antagonists, but upon watching the entries in the new trilogy, it becomes clear that at heart, they're the same villains we've seen before: two dark side Force users who look and act like Sith Lords, though they don't refer to themselves as such. They wield lightsabers, revel in dark side power and seem to want to finish what Palpatine and Vader started -- at least, Kylo Ren does.

The parallels between those two villains and the villains of the original trilogy are undeniably clear, which tells us that perhaps, even though this new trilogy might have started with an effort to introduce new conflicts to the franchise, they now require the Sith to return, even if they now go by a different name. It would help explain the appearance of the Sith in each of the Star Wars Anthology films thus far.

Darth Vader appeared in Rogue One more than once. His scene with Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) was likely written into the film to excite fans and build to the climactic end in which Vader slaughters rebel soldiers in pursuit of the Death Star plans. The brutality of the scene, aside from connecting the events of Rogue One to A New Hope, was meant to remind fans of the Sith Order's more malevolent aspects. This was also something Solo: A Star Wars Story made sure to do with Maul's cameo.

Maul appeared at the end of Solo in the form of a hologram as he instructed Qi'ra to meet him on Dathomir where the two will work together more closely. Before he disappears, he ignites his double-bladed lightsaber, for no real reason other than to-- like Vader in the Anthology film that preceded this one-- excite long-time fans of the franchise. However, while parts of the cameo were purely gratuitous, his appearance is ultimately rather significant.

Maul's interactions with Qi'ra opened up new avenues through which the Sith may return to the Star Wars films, especially if some of the developing theories turn out to be true, namely, the theory that Qi'ra is somehow Rey's mother. Despite the events of Return of the Jedi, it seems the Sith are alive and well in the franchise. Their re-emergence, coupled with their newfound effects, will almost definitely continue to draw attention away from the antagonistic organizations of the new trilogy, both of which have already been kept vague and ill-defined throughout both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, more evidence that the Knights of Ren and the First Order are simply not as full with potential as previously thought.

So, if we assume that what we're witnessing is the start of a shift in the direction of the films, what does the future of Star Wars look like?

Page 3: [valnet-url-page page=3 paginated=0 text='Why%20the%20Constant%20Sith%20Presence%20Is%20Harming%20Star%20Wars']

The franchise is in a strange situation right now. Kylo Ren is, for all intents and purposes, a Sith -- but if the films were to admit that, it would undermine the significance of Luke's role. That being said, the franchise needs Sith-like adversaries for their heroes. For the most part, the franchise has always been about the Jedi fighting the Sith; the conflict between the dark side and the light which means it's difficult for the new trilogy to detach itself from the original without abandoning those themes. It's likely why the new trilogy films, despite introducing new characters, continue to mirror the events of the originals.

Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader lightsaber duel in Star Wars Empire Strikes Back

Kylo Ren, who now rules over the First Order and idolizes his grandfather, Darth Vader, could be the one to revive the Sith in some way. He could very well end the conflict entirely, but since Star Wars is a massive money maker (the disappointing opening weekend of Solo notwithstanding), that's not likely to happen. There has to be room for future conflicts as well as spectacular lightsaber duels which means the possibility of the return of the Sith should not be easily dismissed.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, whether the Sith really do make a comeback as has been incessantly teased and hinted at. Their impact in the Anthology films may be kept to a minimum moving forward, but it's difficult to see how that could happen the way things have been set up, and that's a real shame because as long as Star Wars continues to rely so strongly on its past, the franchise's future will continue to be inhibited.

Directed by Ron Howard, Solo: A Star Wars Story stars Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo, Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian, Emilia Clarke as Qi’ra and Joonas Suotamo as Chewbacca. They’re joined by Thandie Newton as Val, Phoebe Waller-Bridge as L3-37, Paul Bettany as Dryden Vos and Woody Harrelson as Tobias Beckett. The film is playing in theaters nationwide.