I never really considered the OT to be that clear cut on pure good vs pure evil type thing.
Sure, the Emperor was a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling. But Obi-Wan, Yoda, Luke, and Vader had a some layers to them. Unless we're gonna whitewash how Obi-Wan and Yoda tried to manipulate Luke into killing Vader and how they hid that Vader was Luke's father. Yoda had to be pressured on his death bed in order to tell the truth and even then, he did so reluctantly. Then Obi-Wan gave that "certain point of view" shpeal, which even Luke called bullshit on.
Which is fine, they did what they had to in order to defeat the Empire, but that's not exactly without a bit of ambiguity on their part and kinda colors the side of light.
Yoda, Luke and Obi Wan were fairly goody goody, sure the was some lying and such but nothing seriously dark. Vader is the weird one, who symbolizes both because the series would be a downer had Luke's father been a total evil bastard. He's like 99% dick through the OT, except at the end where he redeems himself to the light side really easily by wacking his old mentor. After all the shit Vader's done on and off-screen in the OT, the Force sure was ok with accepting to the light side very quickly. That's why I don't think Vader earned his happy ending.
This is a Star Wars movie. villains are dark and veiny, heroes are true and have shining auras and any transition between good and bad is handled very, very awkwardly. all baddies have red swords, all good guys....don't
Even if this villain is wearing Revan's mask and there is some sort of connection there. We still know nothing about the baddie itself.
Also, was it just me, but did the initial "voice" during Boyega's scene sound different from the voice later on when the baddie is showing off the broadsword. The first voice, as others have mentioned, sounded like Cumberbatch, but the 2nd voice didn't sound like him at all IMO...making me think there was two different voices Is the Rule of Two still kickin? The 2nd voice seemed to have a different non-Cumberbatchian inflection
That isn't all Star Wars has to be, even Star Wars:The Clone Wars (2008) had nuance with the Force. I'd like for Force users to be less black hat and white hat and have evil Force users that aren't Sith, like the Dathomir Witches. I'd also like to explore the Sith in greater detail, either from the past (like KOTOR) and like the Lost Tribe of the Sith. There's so much to mine that the movies haven't touched, now's their opportunity.
My initial reaction was to say no. The original trilogy, and prequels, are full of established dogma that posit a binary good / evil relation to The Force. You'd have to undermine all the established canon, and, worst of all, conflict with the teaching of Yoda.
The 2008 Clone Wars cartoon is canon, dogg. The Force being binary good and evil is weak for an ongoing franchise, it fits for the OT since it's a trilogy - when the Force is in novels, cartoons, tv shows and a new movie every few years that isn't going to cut it. There's nowhere to go with it conceptually with the Force being static good and evil extremes. It's also very boring long term.
edit: The PT did nothing by explaining what the Force is or how the Sith works in general. It had a wonderful opportunity by showing Anakin fall to the Dark Side and failed. What we were shown is that all it takes is to get a Sith Lord to convince you to protect him by betraying a fellow Jedi and you'll be a loyal Sith apprentice in seconds.
But then I thought, "Maybe...that's what awakens means?"
Look at the script of the trailer: "There has been an awakening. Have you felt it? The dark side. And the light."
Change that to: "There has been an awakening. Have you felt it? Between the dark side, and the light."
Instead of "awaken" in the sense of sleep, or "awaken" in the sense of roused to consciousness, it means awaken in an enlightenment sense. Previously unexplored nuances and vagaries in The Force start to become manifest.
Like The Force read Nietzsche, or something.
Perhaps. Nothing is set in stone, though. Shit like that is simple to retcon later on into making it about something specific. We also know next to nothing about what the movie is about.
I don't know, manipulating a son to kill his father is pretty dark if you ask me.
Edit: My point is that the Emperor didn't have to go a bit light. He was evil and fucking loved it. But the Jedi had to go a bit dark in order to win. Which colors their victory, even if the ends justified the means.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Unless we're gonna whitewash how Obi-Wan and Yoda tried to manipulate Luke into killing Vader and how they hid that Vader was Luke's father. Yoda had to be pressured on his death bed in order to tell the truth and even then, he did so reluctantly. Then Obi-Wan gave that "certain point of view" shpeal, which even Luke called bullshit on.
Which is fine, they did what they had to in order to defeat the Empire, but that's not exactly without a bit of ambiguity on their part and kinda colors the side of light.
Which really just drives home the fact that the Jedi Council really was just a bunch of self-righteous pricks.
Change that to: "There has been an awakening. Have you felt it? Between the dark side, and the light."
Sup?
I CAN DREAM GOD DAMNIT
TOGSolid on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I swore that was Tracy Morgan in storm trooper getup at first and my heart swelled with joy for Spaceballs 2.
Well hopping on the hype train. We'll see how this turns out, I mean it can't be worse than the prequels, right?
As for the Broadsword Saber, we'll have to see what they do. The problem with the gimmicky sabers from the prequels, was that we just didn't give a shit about the characters using them and they really didn't have a style. So the sabers felt gimmicky for the sake of being gimmicky, to also probably sell toys and to try poorly, to distract us from how two dimensional their wielders were. If they make the villain worth a damn, that should make any gimmicky weapons easier to forgive. If Disney is serious about making a solid sequel, I think they'll at least give JJ Abrams room to develop the new villain enough that he won't seem two dimensional.
As for style, I believe one of the critiques of the OT, was that the saber fights really weren't that disciplined or elegant from a martial arts perspective and the prequel tried to address that, but did a shit job IMO. So making characters worth a damn will do the most, but I suppose if they could get a style behind it, like we've seen in the clone war shorts or from the Inquisitor, in Rebels, that could alleviated some of the gimmicky feeling behind a broadsword saber. Hell, as pointed out there is some sense with the Inquisitor's saber's spinning thing. I'm perfectly willing to let that go, if he only uses that feature in tight corridors; especially, since he seemed to have enough sense to build is some safeguards to prevent accidental activation and decapitation. So maybe they'll show us something that takes advantage of the feature.
Also would be willing to let it slide, if it comes out that the wielder or crafter, just added those because it was felt that it looked badass and there was no real practical reason. I mean, this is a thing in the real world, where people just add a personal touch, that really has no practical value. I think useless personal touches fit rather well with space wizards.
As for the force, I hope _J_'s is right. That would make for much more interesting angles long term. Got to agree, Yoda's and Ben's thing of not telling Luke that Vader is his father, is kind of dark. Certainly, less creepy than his father's relationship with his mother. I'm also hoping a successful sequel trilogy, will result in them ditching the prequels and remaking them.
So making characters worth a damn will do the most, but I suppose if they could get a style behind it, like we've seen in the clone war shorts or from the Inquisitor, in Rebels, that could alleviated some of the gimmicky feeling behind a broadsword saber.
If we get more stuff like the Inquisitor's single blade style I will be fucking overjoyed. The movie baddie going into a stance like Vom Tag or Pflug and whupping ass with a fancied up version of longsword combat with that longsword lightsaber (NOT. A. BROADSWORD.) would easily result in me slow clapping at the end of the fight and getting dragged away by the theater security.
I never really considered the OT to be that clear cut on pure good vs pure evil type thing.
Sure, the Emperor was a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling. But Obi-Wan, Yoda, Luke, and Vader had a some layers to them. Unless we're gonna whitewash how Obi-Wan and Yoda tried to manipulate Luke into killing Vader and how they hid that Vader was Luke's father. Yoda had to be pressured on his death bed in order to tell the truth and even then, he did so reluctantly. Then Obi-Wan gave that "certain point of view" shpeal, which even Luke called bullshit on.
Which is fine, they did what they had to in order to defeat the Empire, but that's not exactly without a bit of ambiguity on their part and kinda colors the side of light.
Yoda, Luke and Obi Wan were fairly goody goody, sure the was some lying and such but nothing seriously dark. Vader is the weird one, who symbolizes both because the series would be a downer had Luke's father been a total evil bastard. He's like 99% dick through the OT, except at the end where he redeems himself to the light side really easily by wacking his old mentor. After all the shit Vader's done on and off-screen in the OT, the Force sure was ok with accepting to the light side very quickly. That's why I don't think Vader earned his happy ending.
fortunately, the force (as a sort of non-sentient omniscient moral entity) is not restricted by our limitations, and it apparently does not take a consequentialist approach to evaluating people
as long as the person's intent and character are good, they get to be a happy force ghost after they kick it
we may never get to truly peer inside a person and evaluate those traits, but it seems clear the all-knowing space magic is able to
I never really considered the OT to be that clear cut on pure good vs pure evil type thing.
Sure, the Emperor was a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling. But Obi-Wan, Yoda, Luke, and Vader had a some layers to them. Unless we're gonna whitewash how Obi-Wan and Yoda tried to manipulate Luke into killing Vader and how they hid that Vader was Luke's father. Yoda had to be pressured on his death bed in order to tell the truth and even then, he did so reluctantly. Then Obi-Wan gave that "certain point of view" shpeal, which even Luke called bullshit on.
Which is fine, they did what they had to in order to defeat the Empire, but that's not exactly without a bit of ambiguity on their part and kinda colors the side of light.
Yoda, Luke and Obi Wan were fairly goody goody, sure the was some lying and such but nothing seriously dark. Vader is the weird one, who symbolizes both because the series would be a downer had Luke's father been a total evil bastard. He's like 99% dick through the OT, except at the end where he redeems himself to the light side really easily by wacking his old mentor. After all the shit Vader's done on and off-screen in the OT, the Force sure was ok with accepting to the light side very quickly. That's why I don't think Vader earned his happy ending.
fortunately, the force (as a sort of non-sentient omniscient moral entity) is not restricted by our limitations, and it apparently does not take a consequentialist approach to evaluating people
as long as the person's intent and character are good, they get to be a happy force ghost after they kick it
we may never get to truly peer inside a person and evaluate those traits, but it seems clear the all-knowing space magic is able to
I'm not so sure about that. Sith have techniques the Jedi don't, like force choking and lightning. They weaponize it a greater extent than the Jedi do. There's a reason the scene in ROTS where Anikan was force choking Padme that he was a Sith now.
edit: Darth Woodchopper's sword was a cruciform. The blade wasn't wide enough for a broad sword.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Force choke isn't a Sith "technique" it's just a particularly brutal application of something all force users can do. Lightning being purely a Sith thing is also purely EU. It's true that we only see Palpatine (and in the Prequels Dooku) use it, but maybe it's just because it's a technique he favored, which Jedi don't use because it's not terribly efficient/cruel/whatever. Like if you can make force lightning, why not force fire, why have like a force laser sort of thing?
That's one thing I've always been disappointment by. I want people to be more creative with using the Force. It's space magic limited only by your imagination and moral boundaries. If you're willing to cut someone in half with a laser sword, why not channel the force into like an explosion or something
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Force choke isn't a Sith "technique" it's just a particularly brutal application of something all force users can do. Lightning being purely a Sith thing is also purely EU. It's true that we only see Palpatine (and in the Prequels Dooku) use it, but maybe it's just because it's a technique he favored, which Jedi don't use because it's not terribly efficient/cruel/whatever. Like if you can make force lightning, why not force fire, why have like a force laser sort of thing?
It's a technique with how they apply the Force which the Jedi don't use. They'll throw them across a room, they won't snap necks with it. No Jedi in Disney canon used Force Lightning as are as I'm aware. In the EU a Sith, Obi-Wan's evil clone, brain washed an Imperial starship that ruined their minds forever, in contrast to the Jedi who use it very mildly.
That's one thing I've always been disappointment by. I want people to be more creative with using the Force. It's space magic limited only by your imagination and moral boundaries. If you're willing to cut someone in half with a laser sword, why not channel the force into like an explosion or something
The Empire fight is actually pretty damn good from a choreography standpoint. I watched Empire a few months ago after not sitting through the whole thing in years and the fight choreography holds up surprisingly well.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
here's hoping they keep Plo Koon's lighting usage canon.
I think some people are taking the Light side/Dark side of the Force a little too far when they say Star Wars doesn't allow for nuance in it's characters. While the Light and Dark side might be the embodiment of good and evil it's practitioners and those they run with are human and have many of the same issues and faults we do. Luke's best friend is a thief and a killer who almost walks out on him at his very hour of need. Anakin has good intentions initially but ultimately succumbs to the Dark side. But then as Vader he gives it up to save his son. Luke gets dangerously close to succumbing himself but is able to pull back at the last moment upon seeing his father's broken prosthetic hand.
There is good and bad in Star Wars but it's the way the characters in it grapple with it and their choices that makes it interesting. Their is plenty of nuance, there just isn't a lot of navel gazing, moralizing, and hand wringing about each and every choice.*
*Actually there is some of this in the PT but that's just reason 342 why the prequels are not as good as the OT.
I think some people are taking the Light side/Dark side of the Force a little too far when they say Star Wars doesn't allow for nuance in it's characters. While the Light and Dark side might be the embodiment of good and evil it's practitioners and those they run with are human and have many of the same issues and faults we do. Luke's best friend is a thief and a killer who almost walks out on him at his very hour of need. Anakin has good intentions initially but ultimately succumbs to the Dark side. But then as Vader he gives it up to save his son. Luke gets dangerously close to succumbing himself but is able to pull back at the last moment upon seeing his father's broken prosthetic hand.
There is good and bad in Star Wars but it's the way the characters in it grapple with it and their choices that makes it interesting. Their is plenty of nuance, there just isn't a lot of navel gazing, moralizing, and hand wringing about each and every choice.*
*Actually there is some of this in the PT but that's just reason 342 why the prequels are not as good as the OT.
That isn't much nuance. Mal Reynolds' is nastier than Han ever was. Luke wasn't in danger of going Dark Side by being Han's friend. Anakin got off easy, when for years he was essential the devil to the galaxy. Anakin's fall was cheap and undermined how corruptive the Dark Side is. Given what happened in ROTS with how Palpatine recruited him he looks like a fool for not creating large armies of Sith to command since it was so simple to accomplish.
I think some people are taking the Light side/Dark side of the Force a little too far when they say Star Wars doesn't allow for nuance in it's characters. While the Light and Dark side might be the embodiment of good and evil it's practitioners and those they run with are human and have many of the same issues and faults we do. Luke's best friend is a thief and a killer who almost walks out on him at his very hour of need. Anakin has good intentions initially but ultimately succumbs to the Dark side. But then as Vader he gives it up to save his son. Luke gets dangerously close to succumbing himself but is able to pull back at the last moment upon seeing his father's broken prosthetic hand.
There is good and bad in Star Wars but it's the way the characters in it grapple with it and their choices that makes it interesting. Their is plenty of nuance, there just isn't a lot of navel gazing, moralizing, and hand wringing about each and every choice.*
*Actually there is some of this in the PT but that's just reason 342 why the prequels are not as good as the OT.
That isn't much nuance. Mal Reynolds' is nastier than Han ever was. Luke wasn't in danger of going Dark Side by being Han's friend. Anakin got off easy, when for years he was essential the devil to the galaxy. Anakin's fall was cheap and undermined how corruptive the Dark Side is. Given what happened in ROTS with how Palpatine recruited him he looks like a fool for not creating large armies of Sith to command since it was so simple to accomplish.
The last few seasons of the Clone Wars makes ROTS and Anakin's fall there even worse.
Because the Clone Wars shows it as a gradual process and a side effect of his treatment by the order and the effect of being in an ongoing war almost his entire adult life.
Have I mentioned how glad I am that the EU is buried?
You'd be singing a different tune if the prequels was awesome with Jedi clones.
Couldn't of made it worse.
I mean they did give us force bacteria.
An idea so awful even Lucas had a "what was I fucking thinking?" moment and never mentioned that shit again.
Meanwhile over in not depressing Star Wars land I'm watching a magical HD version of Empire and god fucking damn it, this movie is 34 years old and it still looks better than most of the CGI shit these days. That fucking asteroid chase. WOOOOOOOOOOOO *makes spaceship pew pew noises*
I can't wait for my new HOTAS to get here so I can play X-Wing and Tie Fighter. :rotate:
I think some people are taking the Light side/Dark side of the Force a little too far when they say Star Wars doesn't allow for nuance in it's characters. While the Light and Dark side might be the embodiment of good and evil it's practitioners and those they run with are human and have many of the same issues and faults we do. Luke's best friend is a thief and a killer who almost walks out on him at his very hour of need. Anakin has good intentions initially but ultimately succumbs to the Dark side. But then as Vader he gives it up to save his son. Luke gets dangerously close to succumbing himself but is able to pull back at the last moment upon seeing his father's broken prosthetic hand.
There is good and bad in Star Wars but it's the way the characters in it grapple with it and their choices that makes it interesting. Their is plenty of nuance, there just isn't a lot of navel gazing, moralizing, and hand wringing about each and every choice.*
*Actually there is some of this in the PT but that's just reason 342 why the prequels are not as good as the OT.
That isn't much nuance. Mal Reynolds' is nastier than Han ever was. Luke wasn't in danger of going Dark Side by being Han's friend. Anakin got off easy, when for years he was essential the devil to the galaxy. Anakin's fall was cheap and undermined how corruptive the Dark Side is. Given what happened in ROTS with how Palpatine recruited him he looks like a fool for not creating large armies of Sith to command since it was so simple to accomplish.
The characters had plenty of nuance. Just because they weren't tortured souls weighed down by sprawling back stories or psychological ailments and neurosis doesn't mean they were flat one dimensional characters, all good or all evil.
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
I'm watching Empire right now and right from the get go Yoda is kind of a jackass. The idea that he could refuse to train Luke is absolutely nuts. He would seriously let the force active son of one of the most powerful force users ever who turned to the dark side and wiped out the Jedi loose to fend for himself? You might as well put a bow on Luke and mail him straight to the Emperor at that point. I guess an argument could be made that he was just screwing with Luke for giggles and was going to train him anyway but judging by everything else we know about his track record that really doesn't seem likely.
TOGSolid on
0
Options
Waffles or whateverPreviously known as, I shit you not, "Waffen"Registered Userregular
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
I'm watching Empire right now and right from the get go Yoda is kind of a jackass. The idea that he could refuse to train Luke is absolutely nuts. He would seriously let the force active son of one of the most powerful force users ever who turned to the dark side and wiped out the Jedi loose to fend for himself? You might as well put a bow on Luke and mail him straight to the Emperor at that point. I guess an argument could be made that he was just screwing with Luke for giggles and was going to train him anyway but judging by everything else we know about his track record that really doesn't seem likely.
I never really got into the whole extended series lore of Star Wars, but do they explain how long Luke trained with Yoda for in Empire and prior to Return of the Jedi? I thought it was weird by ROTJ that Luke was a fully trained Jedi in what seemed like only a short few months.
I think some people are taking the Light side/Dark side of the Force a little too far when they say Star Wars doesn't allow for nuance in it's characters. While the Light and Dark side might be the embodiment of good and evil it's practitioners and those they run with are human and have many of the same issues and faults we do. Luke's best friend is a thief and a killer who almost walks out on him at his very hour of need. Anakin has good intentions initially but ultimately succumbs to the Dark side. But then as Vader he gives it up to save his son. Luke gets dangerously close to succumbing himself but is able to pull back at the last moment upon seeing his father's broken prosthetic hand.
There is good and bad in Star Wars but it's the way the characters in it grapple with it and their choices that makes it interesting. Their is plenty of nuance, there just isn't a lot of navel gazing, moralizing, and hand wringing about each and every choice.*
*Actually there is some of this in the PT but that's just reason 342 why the prequels are not as good as the OT.
That isn't much nuance. Mal Reynolds' is nastier than Han ever was. Luke wasn't in danger of going Dark Side by being Han's friend. Anakin got off easy, when for years he was essential the devil to the galaxy. Anakin's fall was cheap and undermined how corruptive the Dark Side is. Given what happened in ROTS with how Palpatine recruited him he looks like a fool for not creating large armies of Sith to command since it was so simple to accomplish.
The characters had plenty of nuance. Just because they weren't tortured souls weighed down by sprawling back stories or psychological ailments and neurosis doesn't mean they were flat one dimensional characters, all good or all evil.
I'm not saying they had to be tortured souls, but they sure weren't that nuanced like you're implying. Deep character studies, Star Wars is not*. Honestly, why wouldn't Anakin have massive guilt over what he's done as Vader? He turned from Space Hitler into Space Jesus in seconds, like it was a light switch. The last we see of him was laughing it up with Ghost Obi-Wan like they were old buddies again. Spike the Bloody felt more guilt when he got a soul.
edit: The PT made what Anakin's responsible for worse since he murdered Mace Windu to protect Palpatine, thought he murdered Padme and personally destroyed the Jedi Order and made the Empire possible.
* in the movies. They are in EU and media spin-offs
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
I think Luke was with Yoda maybe a few weeks, the first time? The exact timescale is really confusing. Probably at least a few days, a week minimum would be my guess.
I believe it's officially three years between ANH and ESB, so what you see at the start, where he manages to call a lightsaber to his hand and go all superhero during the battle, singlehandedly taking down an AT-AT? That was three years of combat experience and self-taught ability. Then after Yoda gives him a jumpstart, it's a year between ESB and ROTJ.
+3
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The timeline of empire makes little sense
The falcon didn't hae hyperdrive so it would've taken them a while to get to bespin while luke had a working ship
And however long they were in the asteroid/on cloud city
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
Yoda and Obi-Wan don't believe Anakin can be redeemed. That just means they are mistaken. It's not a big deal.
I know talking about what was wrong with the PT is a fruitless effort at this point, but one thing I hope the sequel trilogy touches on is what exactly makes a sith a sith. The PT tells us next to nothing. Is it just using the dark side of the force? Or is there more too it than that (I assume there is, but we're never told what that is.)
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
I'm watching Empire right now and right from the get go Yoda is kind of a jackass. The idea that he could refuse to train Luke is absolutely nuts. He would seriously let the force active son of one of the most powerful force users ever who turned to the dark side and wiped out the Jedi loose to fend for himself? You might as well put a bow on Luke and mail him straight to the Emperor at that point. I guess an argument could be made that he was just screwing with Luke for giggles and was going to train him anyway but judging by everything else we know about his track record that really doesn't seem likely.
Maybe looking back on it from what we know about Yoda from the prequels and stuff, but just in the sense of the movie itself Yoda totally works. He's the ancient hermit master of kung fu the force, who doesn't want to teach Luke because he doesn't want to train up someone with much anger in him, who's only going to fall to the dark side. Especially considering Luke shows up at his door asking to learn how to be a great fuckin' warrior.
If there's one thing Yoda isn't about, it's about weaponizing people to go kill his enemies. Darth Vader is a bad guy, sure, but if Yoda was just like, "Oh, you wanna go kill the guy? Awesome, this is just what we've been planning for!", well, he wouldn't be Yoda. He's not going to change his code just because his enemy is big and strong, that way lies the dark side.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Well, the cross guard bit does give the light saber more of a crusader element to it with all these bloody connotations of the past, of terrible warfare and death...
So I'm okay with it. It's a little touch that gives it a unique look.
Now, please tell me that the Sith is not a shriveled albino with alopecia, bad hygiene, trouble breathing, and cumbersome metal junk attached to his body. For the love of God, tell me we're getting a Sith that smashes that mold.
sorry thats kind of a no go the darkside is supposed to be a corrupting influence both physically and mentally. the whole power corrupts motif.
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
Yoda and Obi-Wan don't believe Anakin can be redeemed. That just means they are mistaken. It's not a big deal.
You can make arguments about the not telling Luke about his father within the context of the original trilogy, ignoring the prequels. The original story they told Luke was that his father died long ago. In the context of the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan seemed to genuinely treat Vader as a different person, or wanting to do so. Now, one can call bullshit on it, but the OT is fairly consistent in that Anakin/Vader was supposed to be a genuinely good and upstanding guy who went bad for various unstated reasons. He was supposed to have changed. And people genuinely react to people drastically changing like that with "They're not the same person.", and very few people want to be the one who breaks the news of "Nah, your dad is alive and is a fascist tyrant responsible for genocide." Not necessarily moral actions, but human ones.
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
Yoda and Obi-Wan don't believe Anakin can be redeemed. That just means they are mistaken. It's not a big deal.
Yep. And to be super fair to them, even within the context of the OT, it's clear that even if they don't know if he was personally involved in the destruction of Alderaan, they certainly knew that he knew about it, most likely could have done something about it, and was still on the Empire's side after the fact. A guy who implicitly supports the annihilation and mass genocide of an entire planet isn't super high "likely to be redeemed" scale. Even if they thought there was a small non-zero chance, it certainly wasn't one worth betting on.
Posts
Yoda, Luke and Obi Wan were fairly goody goody, sure the was some lying and such but nothing seriously dark. Vader is the weird one, who symbolizes both because the series would be a downer had Luke's father been a total evil bastard. He's like 99% dick through the OT, except at the end where he redeems himself to the light side really easily by wacking his old mentor. After all the shit Vader's done on and off-screen in the OT, the Force sure was ok with accepting to the light side very quickly. That's why I don't think Vader earned his happy ending.
The 2008 Clone Wars cartoon is canon, dogg. The Force being binary good and evil is weak for an ongoing franchise, it fits for the OT since it's a trilogy - when the Force is in novels, cartoons, tv shows and a new movie every few years that isn't going to cut it. There's nowhere to go with it conceptually with the Force being static good and evil extremes. It's also very boring long term.
edit: The PT did nothing by explaining what the Force is or how the Sith works in general. It had a wonderful opportunity by showing Anakin fall to the Dark Side and failed. What we were shown is that all it takes is to get a Sith Lord to convince you to protect him by betraying a fellow Jedi and you'll be a loyal Sith apprentice in seconds.
Perhaps. Nothing is set in stone, though. Shit like that is simple to retcon later on into making it about something specific. We also know next to nothing about what the movie is about.
Edit: My point is that the Emperor didn't have to go a bit light. He was evil and fucking loved it. But the Jedi had to go a bit dark in order to win. Which colors their victory, even if the ends justified the means.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Sup?
As for the Broadsword Saber, we'll have to see what they do. The problem with the gimmicky sabers from the prequels, was that we just didn't give a shit about the characters using them and they really didn't have a style. So the sabers felt gimmicky for the sake of being gimmicky, to also probably sell toys and to try poorly, to distract us from how two dimensional their wielders were. If they make the villain worth a damn, that should make any gimmicky weapons easier to forgive. If Disney is serious about making a solid sequel, I think they'll at least give JJ Abrams room to develop the new villain enough that he won't seem two dimensional.
As for style, I believe one of the critiques of the OT, was that the saber fights really weren't that disciplined or elegant from a martial arts perspective and the prequel tried to address that, but did a shit job IMO. So making characters worth a damn will do the most, but I suppose if they could get a style behind it, like we've seen in the clone war shorts or from the Inquisitor, in Rebels, that could alleviated some of the gimmicky feeling behind a broadsword saber. Hell, as pointed out there is some sense with the Inquisitor's saber's spinning thing. I'm perfectly willing to let that go, if he only uses that feature in tight corridors; especially, since he seemed to have enough sense to build is some safeguards to prevent accidental activation and decapitation. So maybe they'll show us something that takes advantage of the feature.
Also would be willing to let it slide, if it comes out that the wielder or crafter, just added those because it was felt that it looked badass and there was no real practical reason. I mean, this is a thing in the real world, where people just add a personal touch, that really has no practical value. I think useless personal touches fit rather well with space wizards.
As for the force, I hope _J_'s is right. That would make for much more interesting angles long term. Got to agree, Yoda's and Ben's thing of not telling Luke that Vader is his father, is kind of dark. Certainly, less creepy than his father's relationship with his mother. I'm also hoping a successful sequel trilogy, will result in them ditching the prequels and remaking them.
fortunately, the force (as a sort of non-sentient omniscient moral entity) is not restricted by our limitations, and it apparently does not take a consequentialist approach to evaluating people
as long as the person's intent and character are good, they get to be a happy force ghost after they kick it
we may never get to truly peer inside a person and evaluate those traits, but it seems clear the all-knowing space magic is able to
I'm not so sure about that. Sith have techniques the Jedi don't, like force choking and lightning. They weaponize it a greater extent than the Jedi do. There's a reason the scene in ROTS where Anikan was force choking Padme that he was a Sith now.
edit: Darth Woodchopper's sword was a cruciform. The blade wasn't wide enough for a broad sword.
That's one thing I've always been disappointment by. I want people to be more creative with using the Force. It's space magic limited only by your imagination and moral boundaries. If you're willing to cut someone in half with a laser sword, why not channel the force into like an explosion or something
Of course, I'm ignoring the prequels here because the prequels don't establish that and the whole thing falls flat. Less because the concept doesn't really work, but because the prequels made Anakin an amoral, unlikable, whiny, piece of crap.
It's a technique with how they apply the Force which the Jedi don't use. They'll throw them across a room, they won't snap necks with it. No Jedi in Disney canon used Force Lightning as are as I'm aware. In the EU a Sith, Obi-Wan's evil clone, brain washed an Imperial starship that ruined their minds forever, in contrast to the Jedi who use it very mildly.
Agreed.
You'd be singing a different tune if the prequels was awesome with Jedi clones.
Couldn't of made it worse.
I mean they did give us force bacteria.
There is good and bad in Star Wars but it's the way the characters in it grapple with it and their choices that makes it interesting. Their is plenty of nuance, there just isn't a lot of navel gazing, moralizing, and hand wringing about each and every choice.*
*Actually there is some of this in the PT but that's just reason 342 why the prequels are not as good as the OT.
That isn't much nuance. Mal Reynolds' is nastier than Han ever was. Luke wasn't in danger of going Dark Side by being Han's friend. Anakin got off easy, when for years he was essential the devil to the galaxy. Anakin's fall was cheap and undermined how corruptive the Dark Side is. Given what happened in ROTS with how Palpatine recruited him he looks like a fool for not creating large armies of Sith to command since it was so simple to accomplish.
The last few seasons of the Clone Wars makes ROTS and Anakin's fall there even worse.
Because the Clone Wars shows it as a gradual process and a side effect of his treatment by the order and the effect of being in an ongoing war almost his entire adult life.
An idea so awful even Lucas had a "what was I fucking thinking?" moment and never mentioned that shit again.
Meanwhile over in not depressing Star Wars land I'm watching a magical HD version of Empire and god fucking damn it, this movie is 34 years old and it still looks better than most of the CGI shit these days. That fucking asteroid chase. WOOOOOOOOOOOO *makes spaceship pew pew noises*
I can't wait for my new HOTAS to get here so I can play X-Wing and Tie Fighter. :rotate:
Except they were wrong.
Completely disregarding the PT, which I usually do, Yoda and Obi-Wan were wrong about Vader. He did have some good in him and Luke did redeem him. So not only did Yoda and Obi-Wan lie in order to manipulate Luke into killing Vader, their reasoning for doing so was incorrect as well.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I'm watching Empire right now and right from the get go Yoda is kind of a jackass. The idea that he could refuse to train Luke is absolutely nuts. He would seriously let the force active son of one of the most powerful force users ever who turned to the dark side and wiped out the Jedi loose to fend for himself? You might as well put a bow on Luke and mail him straight to the Emperor at that point. I guess an argument could be made that he was just screwing with Luke for giggles and was going to train him anyway but judging by everything else we know about his track record that really doesn't seem likely.
I never really got into the whole extended series lore of Star Wars, but do they explain how long Luke trained with Yoda for in Empire and prior to Return of the Jedi? I thought it was weird by ROTJ that Luke was a fully trained Jedi in what seemed like only a short few months.
I'm not saying they had to be tortured souls, but they sure weren't that nuanced like you're implying. Deep character studies, Star Wars is not*. Honestly, why wouldn't Anakin have massive guilt over what he's done as Vader? He turned from Space Hitler into Space Jesus in seconds, like it was a light switch. The last we see of him was laughing it up with Ghost Obi-Wan like they were old buddies again. Spike the Bloody felt more guilt when he got a soul.
edit: The PT made what Anakin's responsible for worse since he murdered Mace Windu to protect Palpatine, thought he murdered Padme and personally destroyed the Jedi Order and made the Empire possible.
* in the movies. They are in EU and media spin-offs
I believe it's officially three years between ANH and ESB, so what you see at the start, where he manages to call a lightsaber to his hand and go all superhero during the battle, singlehandedly taking down an AT-AT? That was three years of combat experience and self-taught ability. Then after Yoda gives him a jumpstart, it's a year between ESB and ROTJ.
The falcon didn't hae hyperdrive so it would've taken them a while to get to bespin while luke had a working ship
And however long they were in the asteroid/on cloud city
Probably a month, maybe a couple of them?
Much more Kevin Smith circa Clerks than anything by Sorkin
Also yes not enough walking :P
Yoda and Obi-Wan don't believe Anakin can be redeemed. That just means they are mistaken. It's not a big deal.
It's best not to think about it. Most of the film makes zero goddamn sense from a logical stand-point.
Maybe looking back on it from what we know about Yoda from the prequels and stuff, but just in the sense of the movie itself Yoda totally works. He's the ancient hermit master of kung fu the force, who doesn't want to teach Luke because he doesn't want to train up someone with much anger in him, who's only going to fall to the dark side. Especially considering Luke shows up at his door asking to learn how to be a great fuckin' warrior.
If there's one thing Yoda isn't about, it's about weaponizing people to go kill his enemies. Darth Vader is a bad guy, sure, but if Yoda was just like, "Oh, you wanna go kill the guy? Awesome, this is just what we've been planning for!", well, he wouldn't be Yoda. He's not going to change his code just because his enemy is big and strong, that way lies the dark side.
sorry thats kind of a no go the darkside is supposed to be a corrupting influence both physically and mentally. the whole power corrupts motif.
sure and and bush was just mistaken about Iraq
oh my god bush was yoda all along
Yep. And to be super fair to them, even within the context of the OT, it's clear that even if they don't know if he was personally involved in the destruction of Alderaan, they certainly knew that he knew about it, most likely could have done something about it, and was still on the Empire's side after the fact. A guy who implicitly supports the annihilation and mass genocide of an entire planet isn't super high "likely to be redeemed" scale. Even if they thought there was a small non-zero chance, it certainly wasn't one worth betting on.