Jump to content

Theories on what exactly the Knights of Ren are


Guest El Chalupacabra
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest El Chalupacabra

So, what do you think are the Knights of Ren? Clearly, TFA leaves this very open-ended, and is meant to be expanded on in future movies. I see a parallel with how the OT handled the Sith from when I was a kid, long before the PT was out. I remember Vader being touted as Lord of the Sith, with no further explanation. So, the ST is following this format with the Knights of Ren. We know Kylo Ren is apart of it (or used to be), but know nothing else.

 

Here are a couple thoughts I have on the Knights of Ren, and feel free to share yours:

 

1. The Knights of Ren are a completely new order that was founded by Snoke, with Kylo Ren as the second in command. This order was started by Snoke in response to Luke founding a new Jedi order.

 

2. The Knights of Ren are an ancient dark side order, that reemerged after the fall of the Empire to fill the vacuum the Sith left behind. Maybe they were in hiding in the unknown regions, where the remnants of the Empire encountered them?

 

3. The Knights of Ren are all former disaffected Jedi knights from Luke's order, who were led by Kylo Ren, and ended up destroying the Jedi order. Ren could be a place where these Jedi are from, or possibly Ren is a dark side philosophy.

 

What are your ideas?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are a group of people Kylo put together. He found others strong in the dark side and brought them to his cause and they killed the Jedi in training. But their power had a limit. They were strong with the dark side, but not skilled. Snoke was similar-- a total Sith groupie. Had potential, but no real power or training. After the Emperor died he did his best to learn about the dark side and did well. Along the way, he began a cult to worship Palpatine, which eventually became the First Order.

 

Eventually the Ren found Snoke and he greed to rain them with what he knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be cool if they turned out to be something like thralls - slaves or caretakers tending to Snoke's affairs while he is too weak to do so. Nix/The Puritan in Lord of Illusions had Butterfield. Apocalypse had Ozymandias. Snoke has the Knights of Ren. To me, that would be more interesting than having them be an entire group of fallen Jedi or Sith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling of regardless of how they formed, be it Kylo Ren's doing, they are a Sith order or whatever... That their role is much like the Knights Templar during the crusades or an Inquisition of sorts. Elite soldiers with knowledge of the metaphysical, and tasked with rooting out dissidents and converting all to their cause by any means necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I remember Vader being touted as Lord of the Sith, with no further explanation.

 

Technically the word "Sith", while in the novelizations and source materials, wasn't actually used in the movies until the Prequels.

 

 

3. The Knights of Ren are all former disaffected Jedi knights from Luke's order, who were led by Kylo Ren, and ended up destroying the Jedi order.

 

No wonder Luke went into hiding if he screwed up THAT badly.

 

 

After the Emperor died he did his best to learn about the dark side and did well. Along the way, he began a cult to worship Palpatine, which eventually became the First Order.

 

So in the same way that Kylo Ren imitates Vader?

 

While the symmetry isn't bad. I don't know. One villain being a faded copy of the original villain is one thing, but both of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Snoke is a Wizard of Oz style con and when they look behind the curtain it's really a 90 pound nerd wearing a retainer.

It is really being played up that he is not healthy, frail even. So most of the audience is going to assume that he rose to his position by compensating with a deep connection and knowledge of the Dark Side.

 

But if you think about it, how many Sith Lords and other Darksiders are out and about? For that matter, Jedi? Impressing people who don't know any better might not be that difficult. If Snoke has been conning Kylo all this time, teaching in drips and drops not to keep Kylo under control or as part of some grand plan, but because Snoke is a Force-sensitive charlatan who has no other choice -- well, that would be one hell of a twist. OMG Kylo would be so mad!

 

Would really have to explain the whole "time to complete his training" line with care, tho!

 

I would be shocked if something like that happened, but that kind of betrayal could be a masterful wtf twist if done well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're knights of the Ren Table and they dance whenever they're able...

 

I like the idea that Snoke is ditching the Rule of Two. He said that Vader's problem was sentiment and that led to the downfall of the empire.

 

Maybe Snoke realises you need a whole load of Sith or Dark Siders to accomplish what he wants and formed the Knights of Ren as his new structure of power.

 

Basically: Emperor > Master of Ren > Knights of Ren

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT MADE SO MUCH SENSE DIDN'T YOU READ THE DARTH BANE BOOKS?

 

(Actually, those books were better than a lot of the EU - still not exceptionally well written, but better than Kevin J Anderson or Barbara Hambly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule of two was a dumb PT thing so we'll never heard word of it.

 

Made sense to me as an explanation as to why an ancient cult like the Sith could go into hiding for generations and then reemerged. Also explains why there were only two Dark Side users running around in the Original Trilogy.

 

I'd say that little piece of lore filled a lot more gaps than it created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly. It only worked because the story was written around it.

 

A Sith Army trained and hidden only to emerge to occupy the Jedi at large-- that's a far more credible threat than battledroid armies.

You'd have to devise a way to kill off that whole Sith Army by the end of the Prequels. Vader and Palpatine are it in the Original Trilogy. And if you had an entire Sith Army wiped out, that would undermine the danger posed by the Dark Side not only in the Prequels, but in the Original Trilogy as well.

 

And I rather like Palpatine's role in the Prequels as the master manipulator who pretty much singlehandedly destroyed the Republic, took out the Jedi, and corrupted their savior. As much as people complain about the politics of the Prequels, Palpatine as the lurking evil pulling the strings and always, even when the heroes "win", coming out on top, is the most consistently successful storyline throughout those movies.

 

So, no harm from the creation of the Rule of Two. I don't mind if they dump it for the Sequel Trilogy, but it served good purpose in the Prequels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd have to devise a way to kill off that whole Sith Army by the end of the Prequels. Vader and Palpatine are it in the Original Trilogy.

WAIT WHAT!? ARE YOU SURE!?

 

A decent writer can make anything happen and sell it. I utterly refuse the idea that the PT was the only way to do things. This is just off top of my head--

 

1. In TPM a Sith Army comes out of nowhere to help invade Naboo leaving the Jedi all OMGWTFSITH!!!

 

2. In AOTC the Sith make all the commerce guilds and corrupt systems come to their side. The Sith army leads legions of battle droids against Jedi forces and clone troopers.

 

3. In ROTS The Jedi have been beaten back and scattered. The Jedi decide to have a secret meeting, calling in all their remaining numbers to some far off remote world. Anakin, once secretly turned, reports this to Palpatine and the Jedi become sitting ducks. Obi-Wan is held up and doesn't make it-- so Anakin/Vader hunts him down. Meanwhile, Palpatine, knowing that as long as there are Sith or Jedi he will remained challenged, nukes the surface of the planet wiping out Jedi and Sith alike.

 

 

And if you had an entire Sith Army wiped out, that would undermine the danger posed by the Dark Side not only in the Prequels, but in the Original Trilogy as well.

How? That makes no sense what so ever. Explain how more Sith would be less of a threat. Show one example from mythology, westerns, samurai films or world war 2 (given these are the influences on Star Wars) where in a singular evil person was a match against an army of good.

 

And I rather like Palpatine's role in the Prequels as the master manipulator who pretty much singlehandedly destroyed the Republic, took out the Jedi, and corrupted their savior. As much as people complain about the politics of the Prequels, Palpatine as the lurking evil pulling the strings and always, even when the heroes "win", coming out on top, is the most consistently successful storyline throughout those movies.

I'm guessing you mean this sells just how bad and powerful and evil Palpatine is-- that he could win against insurmountable odds to be the baddest bad of all bads.

 

I guess I can see that-- but like everything else in the PT, it's the easiest and weakest way to sell an idea to an audience and a dozen better ideas, more powerful ideas are unexplored as a result.

 

Palpatine playing both sides, seducing Anakin with the dark side, weaseling his way into things-- that could all work in so many ways. I think it's one of the few storylines in the PT that worked despite being surrounded by clunky exposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How?

 

You don't need me to explain how inflated numbers lowers the individual threat.

 

 

 

Show one example from mythology, westerns, samurai films or world war 2 (given these are the influences on Star Wars) where in a singular evil person was a match against an army of good.

 

Doesn't matter. Palpatine was a match. He built his empire by his own hand. And it makes him an awesome Big Bad for the saga.

 

 

 

WAIT WHAT!? ARE YOU SURE!?

 

That's another way to handle it. But it's not necessarily a better one.

 

Also, yeah, I'm sure. What you quoted shouldn't have even been controversial.

 

 

 

I guess I can see that-- but like everything else in the PT, it's the easiest and weakest way to sell an idea to an audience and a dozen better ideas, more powerful ideas are unexplored as a result.

 

It's easier to credibly construct a story where the villain slowly takes control, weakens his enemies through attrition, and manipulates the entire storyline to secretly service his ambitions than it is for him to take it through blunt force and then killing all the witnesses?

 

I don't believe that's an accurate statement. Of the two storylines, Lucas's is a lot more subtle, complex, and mature than the one that you suggest as a replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated how the rule of two changed the dynamic of the Emperor and Vader both trying to turn Luke. If there could only be two sith, then why would Vader have bothered stopping Luke from cutting the Emperor in half in ROTJ? Seems like that would have been just what he wanted. I feel like the rule hurts more than it helps.

 

It always seemed convenient. Even when Yoda announced the rule. It's a big surprise that the Sith reemerged, and it catches them totally off guard, but WAIT, it's okay, Yoda has the Official Guide to Being a Sith tucked in his back pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How?

You don't need me to explain how inflated numbers lowers the individual threat.

 

 

 

Show one example from mythology, westerns, samurai films or world war 2 (given these are the influences on Star Wars) where in a singular evil person was a match against an army of good.

Doesn't matter. Palpatine was a match. He built his empire by his own hand. And it makes him an awesome Big Bad for the saga.

 

 

 

WAIT WHAT!? ARE YOU SURE!?

That's another way to handle it. But it's not necessarily a better one.

 

Also, yeah, I'm sure. What you quoted shouldn't have even been controversial.

 

 

 

I guess I can see that-- but like everything else in the PT, it's the easiest and weakest way to sell an idea to an audience and a dozen better ideas, more powerful ideas are unexplored as a result.

It's easier to credibly construct a story where the villain slowly takes control, weakens his enemies through attrition, and manipulates the entire storyline to secretly service his ambitions than it is for him to take it through blunt force and then killing all the witnesses?

 

I don't believe that's an accurate statement. Of the two storylines, Lucas's is a lot more subtle, complex, and mature than the one that you suggest as a replacement.

 

1. I don't think you recognize sarcasm when you see it.

 

2. I think the fact you enjoy the PT blanks your mind against considering other ways it could be done.

 

3. Scores and scores of Jedi didn't water down Obi-Wan or Yoda, why would more Sith water down Palpatine? He can be just as evil and crafty. If you replace Sith warriors for battledroids in the exact same story it doesn't make Palpatine less special. His minions, be they Stormtroopers or dudes with red lightsbers, don't effect the merit of his character in the hands of a skilled writer.

 

4. You can criticize my idea, but as I said, it off the top of my head. I'm not saying it is automatically better than what we got-- but what we did get was disapiinting for mot people.

 

5. Watch this video. I'm no huge fan of the EU or Star Wars video games-- but this sells both the Sith returning from obscurity in great numbers, gives us epic lightsaber battles, but doesn't make the lead villains seem any less evil than we'd expect.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t3UCqvQGMs

 

Again-- I do think this suffers a bit from PT style over-kill in giving us too much awesome in one place-- but it does illustrate that more Sith does not equal less compelling or evil Sith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.