Yeah because a large group of Warrior Monks, with supernatural powers, who were involved in numerous battles, will fade from memory in 20 years………
I think they were always supposed to be very rare, and the Empire probably did a very good job as portraying as a bunch of dodgy cultists that had a few con tricks up their sleeves and exerted an undue influence over the Repbulic in its final days. Even those who were remembered as heroes of the clone wars often seem to have been remembered as generals rather than Jedi.
Absolutely – which for me is why the sequel trilogy fell flat; why did it all have to be joined back to the original trilogy (yes I know the irony of what happened in the last few minutes of the Mandalorian….. ignore that….) rather than just doing a new story in the same universe.
I think that given Lucas’s grand vision was for 3 (it may have at one point been 4) trilogies with the Skywalkers running as something of a common thread through them, it would have been hard to make the sequel trilogy without it tying back into the original and prequels. Obviously The Force Awakens took flak for playing things very safe and borrowing heavily from A New Hope, but I imagine it would have received just as much flak (albeit possibly from different sources) if it was “not Star Wars enough”. The backlash against The Last Jedi seems to be evidence of that.
I would say that the need for so much of the rest of the franchise (Rebels, Rogue One, Solo, Book of Boba, etc.,) to have to so heavily tie back to pre-existing parts of the canon is more disappointing. I am very glad that the Mandalorian managed to keep Boba Fett and most of the other cameo characters in relatively back seat roles, it would have been too easy to allow them to dominate the story. I found Rebels to be at its most enjoyable when it was sticking to its own story and wasn’t pulling in characters from The Clone Wars, novels and the movies.