Your content will need to be approved by a moderator
A promotional tie-in for Solo: A Star Wars Story has introduced us to some great new characters we can expect to see, including the fantastically monickered Therm Scissorpunch, a crustacean-like alien with huge lobster claws for hands.
But despite being derided as the dumbest name in Star Wars, Therm Scissorpunch is actually quite in-keeping with tradition if you only look a little.
First up is everybody's favourite death stick dealer: Elan Sleazebaggano frequented the clubs of Coruscant before he left to rethink his life in Attack of the Clones. Although later retconned to Sel’Sabagno, Sleazebaggano is typical of the tongue-in-cheek naming convention we often see with background characters in Star Wars.
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Notluwiski Papanoida? This background character appears in Revenge of the Sith in the corridors of the theatre. The name Notluwiski isn't too bad until you realise who the actor is: it's a cameo by George Lucas.
Sith names also seem to be chosen for their thinly veiled meanings. Darth Maul was trained to be a weapon, and was named after one. Sidious has an unavoidable similarity to the word “insidious”, which means to act in a subtle but harmful way; much like how Palpatine chips away at the old Republic. Even Plagueis has connotations of ill intent.
In The Clone Wars animated series, Count Dooku takes a secret apprentice with the not too subtle name of Savage Opress. There are no prizes for guessing what his endgame is.
It would be easy to see these seemingly ridiculous names as a feature of modern Star Wars movies, but they are present in the classic Star Wars trilogy too.
Return of the Jedi is full of interesting characters, like the elephant-like Ephant Mon, Droopy McCool of the Max Reebo band, and let's not forget Jabba the Hutt’s jester Salacious B Crumb. And if individual characters aren't enough for you you could always speak to Admiral Akbar, a member of the aquatic Mon Calamari species.
Perhaps Starkiller was a bit too on-the-nose for the boy who destroys the Death Star, but these other names do make you wonder why they bothered to change it to Skywalker!
We eagerly await the release of Therm Scissorpunch: A Star Wars Story.
In the meantime, Solo: A Star Wars Story debuts on 25 May 2018 in the US and 24 May in the UK.
Well, with the news that Thrawn would be rejoining the Star Wars canon, I thought it might be fun for us to banter over who should be next from the EU/Legends to gain entrance into Star Wars canon, whether in film form or TV show form or other media form.
I think you guys obviously know who I want. (But I find that one doubtful... depending on what and when we find out more about Luke's backstory post-ROTJ and pre-TFA).
But what are some others?
So I thought it'd be interested to bring this up for discussion. Whether the rest of the new trilogy will follow similar naming conventions (at least, in how I see it).
So for Episode I, we had The Phantom Menace. Which at first, was quite ambiguous. I mean, we had no idea what or who this might be referring to.
Then Episode II and III come along, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, respectively, and their titles really leave nothing up to the imagination. They basically tell us what is happening. The clones will attack; the Sith will finally get their revenge.
We have Episode IV: A New Hope. And again, it's a bit obtuse. What is this new hope? Why do we need one? Etc. etc.
And once again, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, for Episodes V and VI. Telling us exactly what the deal is.
So when the title for Episode VII was revealed to be The Force Awakens, we again had to wonder, what does this mean? Has the Force been dormant? Is it awakening in a person? Rather like the titles for 1 and 4, it presents a few interpretations.
So then I ask... do we think the titles for Episode VIII and IX will go the way of 2 and 3, and 5 and 6, and give us a more concrete idea of what's happening?
Do you want them to, so they fit the 'formula' set in the previous two trilogies? Or could you care less about the titles?
I have to say, at the end of the day, I just want the movies to be good. But it would be nice if the titles kind of followed suit, paying homage to what has gone before.