: We have no clue what context is involved here.

I don't think that there is a context where this would be a good idea. It is so banal and when I read that he was raised by the Covies I KNEW that he had been raised to despise humanity. Then I went to the source and found out that this IS the case. I can't say I was surprised. It's just the sort of shit that hack writers write. It's a no-brainer and not in a good way.

I doubt that I will be watching this. It's not a dramatic, huffy, thing. It's just that life is short and there aren't enough hours in the day to worry about dross.

I'm no fan of franchises. They are like sharks, they have to keep moving to live.

This is why the Force Awakens had to undo everything achieved in the first trilogy (A new Hope - The Return of the Jedi). Star Wars needs wars. Star Peace just wouldn't work.

And... because of the decades long gaps in real world time between instalments... You have the problem of protagonist inactivity.

This is best illustrated by Tron Legacy. Flynn was the ultimate protagonist - he was hyper proactive in the first film. He was a mega do-er. (re-watch Tron if you can't remember this aspect of his character) In Legacy they had to explain why he let everything go to pot and just sat on his hands for years until his son arrived to restart the action. (tldr: he got discouraged and a bit depressed)

They needed a reason for Luke to do nothing until they started the Disney films.

John and Sarah stopped SkyNet and Judgement Day so they had to invent a different named AI that also made terminators and sent them back in time. The theme of T2 was that we CAN change our fate. All subsequent films say, "Nah".

Hollywood has yet to reconcile a finished story with the demands of running a franchise. (well, maybe Endgame)

Halo also suffers from this. The Chief beat the Covenant and the Flood but the Covies are more fun to fight than Promethians and the Flood is still around.