Jump to content

Let's Talk About Palpatine and Sith Philosophy


Recommended Posts

 

 

Nightly's quote coding is broken as hell.

 

I've ALWAYS hated the concept of dark Jedi. Once you go dark, you cease being a Jedi.

Well, yeah, it's a very unofficial term, both in-universe and out. Technically, it refers to a Jedi who has fallen to the dark side, but many people--in-universe and out--tend to use the term to refer to any practitioner of the dark side who is not a Sith. And it gets even more confusing in KOTOR when you run into people who use the term "Dark Jedi" to apply to actual Sith, in order to differentiate them from the military ranks of the Sith Empire, such as Sith troopers, Sith commanders, Sith lieutenants, etc.

 

...

You might be onto something about there being a continual need to produce Sith-like villains by circumventing the Rule of Two in the strictest sense. I won't even argue with you on that one because you're probably right. What I can tell you is that it seems the whole Star Wars saga--movies and EU--since the time of the prequels has set up the Sith as the ones who really tipped the Force in the dark side's scale, moreso than any other dark-sider ever has or ever could.

 

Yeah, i strongly disliked the Sith as both an ancient race, a galactic political party, and a functional "dark Jedi." It watered down the concept, and it was part of why I never super took to the KOTOR games, and I hated it even more when it was used in TROS.

 

As for them tipping the scales... maybe this is why I felt out hope for EVERY PT release to give me Sith legions. Like I said, in TPM I thought maybe they were hiding, until Yoda's line. For AOTC I was hoping that Maul's body was used to make Sith clone/drones so the Sith could have an army to fight the Jedi. Even for ROTS I was hoping it would happen-- that we'd find out because they had tipped the scales mass numbers of Jedi had fallen, or gone to join Dooku/Tyranus and become Sith.

 

Its always fun how people can have totally different expectations and/or wants. I never expected the PT to have huge battles between Jedi and Sith. In fact my whole thought process on the Jedi was completely against what was presented in the PT. I never thought there would be many Jedi at all. I thought a few Knights errant type around the Galaxy. A few dozen on the high end really.

 

I always expected the PT to be much more like cloak and dagger with scheming and people turning on each other and assassinations. More like season 1 GoT type stuff I guess.

 

I had always thought the PT (before we knew there was going to be a PT) was going to be Arthurian. The Jedi basically being the knights of the round table. Anakin as Arthur, Obi-Wan as Lancelot, and the unnamed mother of the twins as Guinevere.

 

But I don't need to digress more than that. Back to the original question-- I think Sidious was wrong-- Bane at least had convictions and believed in something other than just himself. But Sidious is a villain, he has to act from ego.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For me that was the great missed chance with Dooku. When we first were getting some spoilers on AOTC it seemed possible, maybe even likely, that Dooku was essentially a bad guy on the right side. Basi

I see Bane and Palpatine as bookends to one another. The way I see it, Bane set up the Rule of Two (I don't like that rule, but that's beside the point) for the Sith Order to survive, and Palpatine w

I hate the rule of two, and I also don't see the narrative advantage of making it a thing. My ideas of the Sith came not from the Eu or the movies, but from the early SW drafts written before ANH. One

Oh, I fully gravitate more toward Bane than Sidious, being the altruistic person that I am; however, I believe that Sidious' beliefs were more in line with the core tenants of the Sith, which are founded on egotism. I think that Bane was smart and developed a fairly solid plan to keep the Sith alive, but in doing so he departed greatly from what it meant to be a Sith in the first place. Sidious, I believe, brought it back to what it was meant to be in the first place, while still utilizing the Rule of Two to the extent of its usefulness. That's just my opinion; not saying yours in incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im only going on what Zerimar said about this Bane guy here but from waht he says, training someone else to eventually kill you and take your place, it just seems to fly in the face of everything we know of the darkside from the movies. It just doesn't fit. A Sith wouldn't have that kind of thought process. For a Sith it's all about themselves. Any ideals or philosophy they have they'd just cast aside when it suited them.

 

It actually is an issue in a way with TROS. The Emperor's original plan in the movie is to make Rey the new Empress. I just don't think any Sith would give a crap about that. If the Emperor couldn't have the power himself he just wouldn't care.

 

So I suppose my issue with this Bane guy is the same as an issue with TROS. The whole thing is the Sith are selfish and power hungry other than when it suits the story for them not to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah, they are clearly lying to each other. And in my mind, they clearly know they are lying to each other.

 

 

That part was always unclear in ESB-- even in the original. It's starts with Vader out with an entire fleet looking for Luke, then he gets a call from the Emperor saying HEY WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THIS SKYWALKER GUY.

 

You'd think the Emperor would have been briefed. Original version:

 

Vader: What is thy bidding, my Master?

Palpy: There is a great disturbance in The Force.

Vader: I have felt it.

Palpy: We have a new enemy: Luke Skywalker.

Vader: Yes, my master.

Palpy: He could destroy us.

Vader: He is just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.

Palpy: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.

Vader: If he could be turned, he would become be a powerful ally.

Palpy: Yes... yes. (clearly intoning he hadn't thought of this.) He would be a great asset. Can it be done?

Vader: He will join us, or die, my Master.

 

This scene was not changed in the initial SE release, but during the filming of ROTS, when McDiarmond was in the make-up, they did a quick pick up to insert into future releases of ESB to make it more compatible with the rule of 2, I think. It goes like this:

 

Vader: What is thy bidding, my Master?

Palpy: There is a great disturbance in The Force.

Vader: I have felt it.

Palpy: We have a new enemy... the young Rebel who destroyed the Death Star. I have no doubt this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker.

Vader: How is that possible?

Palpy: Search your feelings Lord Vader, you will know it to be true. He could destroy us.

Palpy: He could destroy us.

Vader: He is just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.

Palpy: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.

Vader: If he could be turned, he would become be a powerful ally.

Palpy: Yes... (only one yes, but the tone again implies he hadn't thought of this.) He would be a great asset. Can it be done?

Vader: He will join us, or die, my Master.

 

Given that the crawl in all versions states Vader is "obsessed" with finding Luke, this doesn't make it any less confusing. It still implies that after two years and Vader taking out the flagship with a fleet on a mission that Palpatine still doesn't know what is going on. I think Lucas wants us to think that Vader is playing dumb while talking to The Emperor, but either way I have a hard time swallowing that.

 

This doesn't help the rule of two, if anything, it makes it even stupider. Lucas has said in many spots that Sidious has an apprentice problem, in that they fail or get too powerful and need to be done away with. He used Tyranus as a prop, when he wanted Anakin. Then Anakin's potential is nerfed by the fact he gets chopped up and burned alive.

 

In ROTJ it is clear that Vader and Sidious/Palpatine both want to buddy up with Luke and jettison the other. I think this notion was basically reverse engineered into the Rule of 2. When I was younger and the OT only existed, I always assumed Vader was legit in wanting to off The Emperor, but when the Emperor/Sidious/Palpatine tells Luke to kill Vader it's because he sees Vader is fubar'd and that it would suffice as a way to get Luke to fully turn.

 

I think that if I am supposed to accept there can only be two Sith, and then Luke comes along, there is no way Sidious or Vader would trust the other. They both know it's game on-- and they both know the other one knows. I don't buy ANYONE playing dumb.

 

Where as, if there is no 2-Sith rule, it's a non issue. Then the machinations and secret plotting in ESB and ROTJ on what to do with Luke works better. This is a prime example of the PT actively taking something from the OT and dismantling it.

 

I HATE the newer dialogue. I am not sure if some others here can remember the OT in theaters during first run, but I do. As such, I have seen the context of the OT change, with the PT, the EU, and the ST. Also, I think those who saw the OT SE version or even the PT first, have a different interpretation, altogether.

 

Like I said in my first post, there are retcons on top of retcons since the OT. You get no argument from me that the Rule of Two was not part of the original plan, and is in fact a retcon (or is frustrating from a story standpoint). Long before there was a PT, growing up I thought that Vader was initially trying to find Luke because he wanted revenge for blowing up the Death Star, before the Emperor scene. Then, when Vader and the Emperor talked about turning Luke, at first it seemed they were conspiring together. But even seeing it the first time, after Vader attempted to get Luke to join him to overthrow the Emperor, it was clear to me Vader was working against the Emperor. It wasn't really clear to me that the Emperor was doing the same, until ROTJ, and I came to then believe they both were playing dumb to each other, and that they both were trying to get rid of the other, with Luke's help.

 

But since the Rule of Two has existed since 1999, it just is part of the story now, and I think it does work, even with the old dialogue, as clumsy as it is. Does it require mental gymnastics to make sense and line up with the PT? I suppose it does. Especially if one doesn't like the Rule of Two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im only going on what Zerimar said about this Bane guy here but from waht he says, training someone else to eventually kill you and take your place, it just seems to fly in the face of everything we know of the darkside from the movies. It just doesn't fit. A Sith wouldn't have that kind of thought process. For a Sith it's all about themselves. Any ideals or philosophy they have they'd just cast aside when it suited them.

 

It actually is an issue in a way with TROS. The Emperor's original plan in the movie is to make Rey the new Empress. I just don't think any Sith would give a crap about that. If the Emperor couldn't have the power himself he just wouldn't care.

 

So I suppose my issue with this Bane guy is the same as an issue with TROS. The whole thing is the Sith are selfish and power hungry other than when it suits the story for them not to be.

That is also my gripe with the Rule of Two. A Sith Lord attaining the rank of Master is supposed to give all his/her knowledge to the apprentice so that the apprentice can kill the master and take over? It IS hard to reconcile. It would seem to imply that the Dark Side of the Force is sentient and is actually pulling the strings. But this is wrong, too. More than that, I hate that idea, because it absolves every Sith of their evil actions. Literally, the devil made them do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I fully gravitate more toward Bane than Sidious, being the altruistic person that I am; however, I believe that Sidious' beliefs were more in line with the core tenants of the Sith, which are founded on egotism. I think that Bane was smart and developed a fairly solid plan to keep the Sith alive, but in doing so he departed greatly from what it meant to be a Sith in the first place. Sidious, I believe, brought it back to what it was meant to be in the first place, while still utilizing the Rule of Two to the extent of its usefulness. That's just my opinion; not saying yours in incorrect.

Bane works I suppose as a legend, who helped save the Sith from going completely extinct, and moved them underground. But like Tank and Choc say, and I happen to agree, the Rule of Two falls apart when you examine it in depth. I can understand that it has been canon since 1999, but 1000 years of a master finding and then training an apprentice for the sole purpose of that apprentice eventually killing the master to take over, doesn't really make a lot of sense. On top of that, why just train underground, but not do anything but pass on knowledge from master to apprentice, until "the time is right" for 1000 years. If your whole reason is to become a sith lord is to gain ultimate power, but not only not use it, but to be killed off by someone else, who in turn does the exact same thing, generation after generation for 10 centuries,that just doesn't make sense. Even in the most twisted of cults, it doesn't.

 

Now the way the jedi practiced their version of the Rule of Two, for lack of a better term, with Luke as the last hope, and trained first by Obi Wan, then later by Yoda, for the sole purpose of confronting Vader and putting an end to the Emperor's rule, makes more sense. There's no waiting a 1000 years. Yes Yoda and Obi Wan went into hiding, Obi Wan to watch over Luke, and Yoda in exile until he was needed to train Luke (which Obi Wan had to convince him to do, no less) , but that was for the sole purpose of the son of the Chosen One to hopefully have the same potential and right the wrongs of Vader. That is not only something that makes for a better story, but is echoed time and again throughout many cultures. At the very least, its Arthurian. Or Shakespearean, for that matter, but is also seen in Egyptian, Greco Roman, and Norse mythology, to name just a couple other examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Nightly's quote coding is broken as hell.

 

I've ALWAYS hated the concept of dark Jedi. Once you go dark, you cease being a Jedi.

Well, yeah, it's a very unofficial term, both in-universe and out. Technically, it refers to a Jedi who has fallen to the dark side, but many people--in-universe and out--tend to use the term to refer to any practitioner of the dark side who is not a Sith. And it gets even more confusing in KOTOR when you run into people who use the term "Dark Jedi" to apply to actual Sith, in order to differentiate them from the military ranks of the Sith Empire, such as Sith troopers, Sith commanders, Sith lieutenants, etc.

 

...

You might be onto something about there being a continual need to produce Sith-like villains by circumventing the Rule of Two in the strictest sense. I won't even argue with you on that one because you're probably right. What I can tell you is that it seems the whole Star Wars saga--movies and EU--since the time of the prequels has set up the Sith as the ones who really tipped the Force in the dark side's scale, moreso than any other dark-sider ever has or ever could.

Yeah, i strongly disliked the Sith as both an ancient race, a galactic political party, and a functional "dark Jedi." It watered down the concept, and it was part of why I never super took to the KOTOR games, and I hated it even more when it was used in TROS.

 

As for them tipping the scales... maybe this is why I felt out hope for EVERY PT release to give me Sith legions. Like I said, in TPM I thought maybe they were hiding, until Yoda's line. For AOTC I was hoping that Maul's body was used to make Sith clone/drones so the Sith could have an army to fight the Jedi. Even for ROTS I was hoping it would happen-- that we'd find out because they had tipped the scales mass numbers of Jedi had fallen, or gone to join Dooku/Tyranus and become Sith.

Its always fun how people can have totally different expectations and/or wants. I never expected the PT to have huge battles between Jedi and Sith. In fact my whole thought process on the Jedi was completely against what was presented in the PT. I never thought there would be many Jedi at all. I thought a few Knights errant type around the Galaxy. A few dozen on the high end really.

 

I always expected the PT to be much more like cloak and dagger with scheming and people turning on each other and assassinations. More like season 1 GoT type stuff I guess.

I had always assumed, growing up, that the prequels would feature a giant battle not between Jedi and Sith, but Jedi and a Mandalorian army (thanks, Starlog).

Link to post
Share on other sites

We kinda got the Mandalorian / Jedi battle in TCW... maybe The Mandalorian will surprise us with something in season 2. Brining out the Darksaber is inviting a Jedi storyline.

 

An alternate rule of two theory that I remember being tossed around as a rumor pre AOTC, which I clung to cause it would give me what I want, is that Yoda's statement didn't mean that there were ONLY two Sith, just that they operated in pairs.

 

Unlike the Jedi Order, with a council and free-roaming Knights, The Sith operated solely in Master and apprentice duos. Not unlike a Jedi Master and Padawan.

 

Point being, that there were Sith in hiding all over the galaxy, but they were not organized like the Jedi. Masters were independent, took apprentices, trained them until they were ready to go off on their own and take their own apprentice. It's not dissimilar from how terrorist cells work, and they had adopted this method after losing a war to the Jedi.

 

The rumor went on to say that Palpatine/Sidious was going to be the Sith Lord that united all of the disparate pairs of Sith into one again to take down the Jedi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt TRoS kinda sorta retcon the Rule of Two into the Master taking over the apprentice after death? Like some kind of soul transfer? Or at least joining together?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people talking about the scene between Vader and Palpatine, you might be interested in Adywan's edit. Not only did he replace the version of Palpatine from Revenge of the Sith with that of Return of the Jedi (which makes more sense with the passing of twenty years), but he also cut the dialogue to resemble the original with 99% accuracy (aside from "young Skywalker" as opposed to "Luke Skywalker") and sped up Ian McDiarmid's speech. Check it out:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better. I still miss Clive Revill with Bette Davis chimpanzee eyes, though!

 

 

We kinda got the Mandalorian / Jedi battle in TCW... maybe The Mandalorian will surprise us with something in season 2. Brining out the Darksaber is inviting a Jedi storyline.

 

An alternate rule of two theory that I remember being tossed around as a rumor pre AOTC, which I clung to cause it would give me what I want, is that Yoda's statement didn't mean that there were ONLY two Sith, just that they operated in pairs.

 

Unlike the Jedi Order, with a council and free-roaming Knights, The Sith operated solely in Master and apprentice duos. Not unlike a Jedi Master and Padawan.

 

Point being, that there were Sith in hiding all over the galaxy, but they were not organized like the Jedi. Masters were independent, took apprentices, trained them until they were ready to go off on their own and take their own apprentice. It's not dissimilar from how terrorist cells work, and they had adopted this method after losing a war to the Jedi.

 

The rumor went on to say that Palpatine/Sidious was going to be the Sith Lord that united all of the disparate pairs of Sith into one again to take down the Jedi.

That would have worked a lot better.

 

 

Didnt TRoS kinda sorta retcon the Rule of Two into the Master taking over the apprentice after death? Like some kind of soul transfer? Or at least joining together?

TROS retconned everything, yet gave no explanation. Which is why it sucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea of Rey being "all the Jedi" could have been pretty cool. Ofcourse it's something Rey says in her first sequence of the movie and plays no part again until the climax, which is kind of a waste. It should have been used to juxtapose against the Palpatine and the Sith. Sort of like Palpy is selfish and wants power for himself whereas Rey is channeling all the Jedi who want to work together as one to defeat this evil. Then no matter how strong Palpatine is by himself he cannot stand against the combined strength of all the Jedi being marshalled Rey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We kinda got the Mandalorian / Jedi battle in TCW... maybe The Mandalorian will surprise us with something in season 2. Brining out the Darksaber is inviting a Jedi storyline.

 

An alternate rule of two theory that I remember being tossed around as a rumor pre AOTC, which I clung to cause it would give me what I want, is that Yoda's statement didn't mean that there were ONLY two Sith, just that they operated in pairs.

 

Unlike the Jedi Order, with a council and free-roaming Knights, The Sith operated solely in Master and apprentice duos. Not unlike a Jedi Master and Padawan.

 

Point being, that there were Sith in hiding all over the galaxy, but they were not organized like the Jedi. Masters were independent, took apprentices, trained them until they were ready to go off on their own and take their own apprentice. It's not dissimilar from how terrorist cells work, and they had adopted this method after losing a war to the Jedi.

 

The rumor went on to say that Palpatine/Sidious was going to be the Sith Lord that united all of the disparate pairs of Sith into one again to take down the Jedi.

I had always assumed this. Why not? Somewhere on the other side of the galaxy there's bound to be another Sith. Or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Well, the jedi seemed to do that, so why not the sith? Had the rule of two referred to pairs, or even just been limited to the ultimate lords of the sith, but still left room for non-Dark Lord sith masters and sith apprentices, the stories wouldn't have been limited or in need of work arounds.

 

Also, and I know some will disagree, I also like the idea of dark jedi/fallen jedi, excommunicated from the jedi order. I also like the idea of gray jedi/former good jedi leaving the order but remaining good (EG Jolee Bindo, Ahsoka Tano come to mind), too. In RL, we have people that leave their religions all the time, but still remain true to most of the teachings (EG non-practicing catholics). The idea that you can only be an ordained jedi or a sith lord in of itself is limiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me that was the great missed chance with Dooku. When we first were getting some spoilers on AOTC it seemed possible, maybe even likely, that Dooku was essentially a bad guy on the right side. Basically he knew Palpy was evil and was fighting against him but his methods in this fight were so bad that it made him evil. Ofcourse our "good" characters were fighting on Palpatine's side. I think that could have been endlessly interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me that was the great missed chance with Dooku. When we first were getting some spoilers on AOTC it seemed possible, maybe even likely, that Dooku was essentially a bad guy on the right side. Basically he knew Palpy was evil and was fighting against him but his methods in this fight were so bad that it made him evil. Ofcourse our "good" characters were fighting on Palpatine's side. I think that could have been endlessly interesting.

I agree, Choc. It was a waste of Christopher Lee's talent, too. I know I am referencing EU here, but during the Old republic Era (for those who aren't in the know), there is a character Ulic Qel Droma in the Dark Horse Comics from the 90s. His back story was he was a venerable jedi, who was a rogue jedi (sort of a cross between maybe Anakin and Qui Gon), who took it upon himself to root out the Sith, by going undercover (at first) and joined the sith, with the intent of destroying the sith from within. He became apprenticed to Exar Kun, mor or less the Emperor of his time. However, Ulic failed because he became corrupted by the dark side, and helped kick ff a Jedi Sith war that nearly destroyed both sides, and the galaxy.

 

I kind of wish Lucas took a similar approach to Dooku, as with Ulic. A good jedi, who in his hubris, while trying to take down the Emperor, ended up getting in over his head and was corrupted by the emperor. IN AOTC, during his capture of Obi Wan, it kind of seemed he was going that way, but in ROTS, Dooku just was a 1 dimensional miniboss that Anakin beat, on his journey to the dark side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the realm of the movie it works fine what Dooku does. He trying to lure Obi Wan to his side by lying, pretty standard Sith stuff, in hopes of making him his apprentice and te killing Sidious. So its not like his actions don't add up.

 

But yeah the character had far more potential. Lucas doesn't really introduce him till 2/3 of the way into AOTC. It may be even later into the movie than that actually. He's trying to build mystery around him but I don't think that really works.

 

Years ago I wrote a "my version of the PT" thing here. I won't rehash all of it but Dooku's basic storyline was.

 

1-Was a Jedi who realized Palpy was evil

2-Leaves the Jedi and recruits other Jedi and many systems to his cause

3-Wages a brutal war on the Republic to destroy Palpatine, his tactics are brutal and he is without doubt evil

4-Padme realizes Palpy is evil too and decides to make common cause with Dooku as she believes he is lesser of 2 evils

5-Padme helps Dooku and his men onto Coruscant in an assassination attempt with the understanding that he would only kill Palpy

6-Dooku ofcourse ignores this and just goes on a rampage in his attempt to kill him

7-Dooku finds Palpy and Anakin, he defeats Anakin but befor ehe can kill him Palpy springs into action and kills Dooku with lightning, the first time Palpy showed his force abiliities

 

That would all be Episode II. The fall out is Padme becomes a fugitive and it is known she helped Dooku. Anakin saw Palpys lightning display and wants to learn this power, which Palpy offers to teach him in secret. Eventhough Dooku is defeated and his cause with him Palpy refuses to give up his war powers which finally causes the Jedi and certain senators to realize that perhaps theyve been fighting on the side of a despot during this whole war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of EU, despite the Rule of Two (we're talking after 1999 here), there was a lost tribe of the Sith. These guys would eventually team up with the Jedi, including Luke, to defeat a bigger threat. There was also Darth Krayt in hiding, who would reemerge generations later and create the One_Sith. I like it because, although the Banite Sith are the prominent faction in the galaxy and the ones whose existence is keeping the dark side's hold over the light, it shows that things are more nuanced than they may initially seem, as is often the case in real-world history. For example, there is evidence there there were already Hebrew tribes living in the land of Canaan before the Hebrews of the Exodus arrived from Egypt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to a comment I made in this thread earlier, with the prequels, not only did we learn that our perception of the Sith was completely off, but so was that of the Jedi (although this really took shape in the EU in the '90s, with George Lucas' blessing as it likely matched up with what he had in mind). As it turned out, both factions were not simply terms applied to adherents to the light and dark sides of the Force, but referred to actual Orders with dogmas, beliefs, practices, ranks, and physical temples. I know that many prefer the old perception, but personally, I like the current one better. Further, I do like the idea that the Jedi (and Sith) are not the only Force-using factions in the galaxy, nor were they the first, historically speaking. In a fictional universe that is like our own, with the one exception being the Force, I love the idea that it is mystical enough that many people don't believe in it yet prominent enough that many people have come to know it. It makes for robust, nuanced lore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive just never felt that Star Wars lent itself to that kind of thing. I mean I love those long, drawn fictional histories. Im a total nerd for ASOIAF. With Star Wars though I just don't feel it works for a few reasons.

 

I think just the vastness of a Galaxy and how far back the history goes. An entire Galaxy where the history goes back 1,000 generations. Its just too much to fill in the gaps to make it truly feel like a complete history rather than just stories spaced throughout this vastness.

 

Also just nuts and bolts it's written by too many people across too much time and out of order. It doesn't lead to real coherence.

 

On the same note there is a hierarchy to Star Wars which just doesnt lend itself to this kind of thing. Even before Disney got rid of the old EU I'd think even the most ardent EU fans realized that the books were essentially subservient to the movies. That even before being decanonized that if a movie wanted to do something that went against established EU that the movies would do it without giving it a thought and would send the EU on a scramble to sort of reconcile everything.

 

If you love it though, thats cool. Ive made fun of the EU before but no more than others make fun of the PT or anything else. Ive also made fun of the people so very angered by their decanonization but that was more just me saying "why are you so mad, the books are stil on your shelf, no one is taking them away."

 

This extends beyond the whole EU thing though. Ive argued here that even among the much less voluminous movies we shouldn't want or expect perfect lining up between movies or trilogies and instead should look at each one as a legend like Robin Hood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there are at least 3 Star Wars going on.

 

You have the films, which really paint with broad brushes, and is very simplistic and black and white...at least the PT and OT are. The ST gets into some nuance that the PT and OT don't get into, but largely recreates the themes of the OT, but still is simplistic story telling. This is what I think Tank describes.

 

Then you get into the EU. Novels, where things are fleshed out more (and varying degrees of success). Books allow for more nuance, and exploration of various concepts, that the films don't allow for. Some video games fall into this, as well, especially KOTOR and TOR, but also the Kyle Katarn games, too.

 

Then you have the animated Filoni verse, which it seems the Mando is a live action extension of. Because of the shear amount of episodes, these are fleshed out much more than the films, but also treads the water of EU, in a lot of ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people talking about the scene between Vader and Palpatine, you might be interested in Adywan's edit. Not only did he replace the version of Palpatine from Revenge of the Sith with that of Return of the Jedi (which makes more sense with the passing of twenty years), but he also cut the dialogue to resemble the original with 99% accuracy (aside from "young Skywalker" as opposed to "Luke Skywalker") and sped up Ian McDiarmid's speech. Check it out:

 

That's definitely better than what we currently have... even still, the 'We have a new enemy" line is still a problem for me. It still conflicts with the crawl. Like I said, it's weird even in the original.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it conflicts with the crawl at all. Its not very hard to believe Vader could be off on his own doing whatever he wants and the Emperor has little or no idea what he is doing. He seems pretty isolated by the time the OT.

 

In ANH Tarkin doesn't seem too concerned about the Emperor, he is operating as he wants with seemingly no oversight. He doesnt seek the Emperor's permission to allow Leia to "escape" or even to blow up an entire planet. He seems fairly independent.

 

Then in ROTJ everyone seems completely shocked that the Emperor is going to be on the Death Star. Jerjorrod seems very taken aback when Vader says the Emperor is coming soon. The entire Rebellion seems very surprised and kind of gives off a "holy crap hes coming out and this is our one chance to kill him" vibe.

 

It seems completely possible Vader could be off searching for Luke with the Emperor having no idea. I mean Vader has the perfect cover for this in that he is searching for the Rebellion, who he believes Luke to be with. When the Emperor contacts Vader it doesn't seem like this is a usual thing. It seems special and rare.

 

Palpatine wanted power for powers sake. He just wanted to win. It's not like he has an agenda for power. He just wants the power. Its easy to believe he won the Throne and then basically isolated himself and didn't really give a crap what happened in the Galaxy he was ruler of. The people he appoints to power seem to have fairly free reign, including Vader. The Emperor just stays isolated, reveling in his "unlimited power" until he feels actually threatened. Which brings him back to the fore in ROTJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure what you're saying is what is intended. The ANH novelization implied the Emperor (pre him being a dark sider) was so corrupt and insulated that the top Imperial officers manipulated him.

 

But he DID dissolve the senate.

 

Once we've seen him play two sides in the PT, and be so omniscient about everything in ROTJ, I just never bought that Vader could take the Imperial flagship and a giant ass fleet, and tell all the top admirals they were looking for "Skywalker" and somehow, The Emperor is totally unaware this is happening. I don't but it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I totally can. Like i said it's not like the Emperor has some agenda for power. In the PT hes not like "I cant wait to gain power so I can change these policies". He just wants to win for powers sake. I'd even argue that the dissolution of the Senate plays into this. He doesnt want to even deal with the Senate and the governance of the Galaxy anymore. He just puts power directly into the hands of the Regional Governors and is done with it.

 

As for the Officers knowing what Vader is doing and the Emperor remaining unaware. Who are you going to worry about more? The Emperor on the Coruscant who you've probably never met or dealt with? Or the maniac on your ship who kills anyone who displeases him with this mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...