Great find! Also interesting slight modification of the source: “only the Emperor can unfreeze him” is a wholly different thing from “his de-carbonization process was an Imperial secret.” The latter may still offer the briefest of additional hope that the secret could still be buried in some still-existing Imperial files rather than solely subject to Palpatine’s now-ended memory or powers.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

By LFL’s own 2012 “Legendary Star Wars” statement introducing new canon and Legends, it’s clear that the 35ABY death of the Emperor in RoS is intended to serve as an immovable event in any official Star Wars story; whether this new lease on finding the secret offers Okko any new hope or not, I don’t quite know. Which is why I asked the question. I think it might have bearing in any prospective answer related to my question, but perhaps not. But if I knew the answer rather than just the question, I wouldn’t need to ask the question.

LFL only addressed its new canon moving forward; it has never addressed, nor in fact moved forward with its old now-Legends canon to presume how that old now-Legends continuity would or could accommodate the post-2012 canon. Given that Dark Nest flowwalking & The World Between Worlds can allow for an infinite number of Expandy-Universy ways Dark Empire and RoS events could occur, including “it’s one or the other” being one of those, but right now it’s all just anyone’s head-canon.

I’m not passing any judgment on how any pre-2012 continuity could be possibly extrapolated to shoehorn in post-2012 immovable events. Merely rather, an important element of the question is the secret lies with the Emperor. So consequently, the death(s) of the Emperor may be significant to prospective answers. Being canon, the 35ABY (final, FINAL) death of the Emperor may serve as an absolute boundary condition to the events at question.

My question actually is intended to be whether Okko (the Ysanna) have been officially freed at all, ever. There is a single answer to that if they have been in any timeline. I figure this question is esoteric enough that such a generalized form is sufficient and that we probably don’t need essentially two separate questions to address whether Okko remains wall art. But if people feel Okko is suitably significant in Star Wars canon, then a sibling question can be generated, but it’ll likely be subjected to post abuse with tangential side issues whether he exists in current canon, etc.

Ego also identifies himself as a Celestial; so if Ego is an honest omniscient information source (which he has not been) whatever definition of “unique” he’s using applies to the context of a class of Celestial beings (I.e. “every Celestial has their own unique finger print”), as well as then that the definition of Celestial must accommodate that common class of beings having an element of uniqueness. However, Ego has also not been honest.

It was a little surreal because they thought they would film with Murray in the room but instead they all green screened it with Murray Zoom-meeting in his part while they talked to a stand-in in a green suit. Murray was beast mode because he flew in, filmed his parts in isolation for 30 minutes then flew back out.

Sony also confirmed they knew they were making a film that was not Ghostbusters but were secretly trying to find ways to make any connection: Agree that everyone is way too nervous about how this issue and how we. present it but it's isn't a sequel to the 80s movies and it is gonna be totally original with completely different characters and our job is to find a clever way to connect the movie to the original franchise so that we can use all the assets and everything that is great about the original franchise,”

…look for someone who isn’t seeking the spotlight.”

Slight distinction: “identifying aggressive litigation counsel” is actually not the same as “aggressively litigating.” What Sony was trying to hide: “In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on ‘Ghostbusters’, AG requested that we identify ‘aggressive’ litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize. [Harkening back to his prior employer, of course, raised the name of David Boies.] Personally, while I’m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should…

You have to wonder if this is a deeply held belief by Cameron of man’s true nature, or he’s just waxing poetic to sell his films. It’s like John McClane’s bad luck with terrorists — at some point, the characters of the Tetminator universe are going to look at ours and see there was no Judgement Day and long to break free of their Creators