Given how easy it was to decimate the Jedi, and then plunge the galaxy into two decades of repressive military rule, they would have a hard time winning that argument. ;)
Where were you in '77?
I think JK2 and JKA had good enemies. A combination imperial remnant and some dark side force users.
What I like about JK2 and JKA is that those enemies did not take half of the galaxy, but it was just a crisis of some sort. I just don't want any galaxy-scale war at the timeline selected for the films. But I am afraid I will be disappointed.
And no clone armies or any kind of cloning please. Preferably no dorid armies either.
真実
skyjedi2005 said:
Also if i am not mistaken Zahn, Veitch and Anderson tried to have some kind of overlapping continuity if not successful in execution they had the idea for the stories to intersect.
From what I read, the Thrawn Trilogy was supposed to take place after Dark Empire and have a bunch of references to that storyline. Zahn refused, though, so the chronological order was flipped around and no references to Dark Empire ever showed up in his trilogy.
I don't want any Darths. Vader not being the only Darth in the prequels was bad enough.
DuracellEnergizer said:
skyjedi2005 said:
Also if i am not mistaken Zahn, Veitch and Anderson tried to have some kind of overlapping continuity if not successful in execution they had the idea for the stories to intersect.
From what I read, the Thrawn Trilogy was supposed to take place after Dark Empire and have a bunch of references to that storyline. Zahn refused, though, so the chronological order was flipped around and no references to Dark Empire ever showed up in his trilogy.
I believe this is exactly true. In fact Dark Empire was supposed to follow right after the OT, but since Zahn refused to make references, they placed DE 6 years after ROTJ and included references to his trilogy
I don't think I've posted in this thread in regards to what villains I'd like to see in the ST. If I have, bear with me, 'cause I'm probably repeating myself ...
I don't really want a central villain, per se, for all three movies -- I'd rather see each episode have it's own main villain, with each episode connecting to form a story with a central theme.
For Episode VII, I'd like the main villain to be a Brakiss-type character -- a former apprentice of Luke's who went rogue and formed his own Jedi Order. He'd be a Dark Jedi, but one who is simply misguided, not evil for the sake of being evil.
For Episode VIII, I'd like the main villain to be a Joruus C'Baoth-type character -- an insane Force-user who wants to steal Luke's youngest students away from him and shape them according to his own twisted will.
And finally, for Episode IX, I'd like the main villain to be a resurrected Palpatine-type character -- a powerful darksider who is virtually the embodiment of the dark side, who wants to crush Luke's Order and cast the entire galaxy into darkness.
I'd like for the trilogy to have a villain who has a compelling story arc that allows me to believe that their villainy is justified from their point of view. If they need three movies to do this villain justice, so be it. If they can make a new and compelling threat for each movie, so much the better. But don't make a new villain for each movie just to have a new baddie to fight, or make them all Force users. Bring back a Tarkin-esque character, or an entirely nonhuman threat for a change, such as an impending supernova or the death of a planet due to an asteroid collision. Yay variety!
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
This is just too funny to not post:
What…the…
Sorry for my outburst, by the way.
I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.
One thing we haven't seen in a long time is a Star Wars villain who is truly menacing.
I don't think we ever had a star wars villain who was truly terrifying.
The closest to menacing was Vader until he became humanized as someone's father and unmasked.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
In the case they really would want to have some Sith in this movie (a thing that I think is not needed, but whatever), my guess is they would think about using Darth Plageis. As a ghost, or he maybe never died as Palpy thought. I think about him simply because he is the only Sith ever mentioned in the movies that we never saw on screen (there's a couple of drawings and even some action figure I guess but I don't know how "canon" they are?). Using him would be a bit unoriginal (and would once again remove any mistery around a SW character) but it would be the only way to tie the sequel to something we already know about the Sith. Of course you can make a new trilogy without anything tied to the past movies. But if you're using some original cast and still using "Episode" in the title, then it needs to have some connection. And if we speak about Sith (IF there are Sith in this movie at all), then Darth Plagueis is the obvious option (I'm not saying the best, only the obvious)
If Plagueis shows up in the ST, not only will I refuse to watch the movies, but I won't so much as watch the trailers, either.
Plagueis surviving would make Plagueis a mary sue at Palpatine's expense. If Plagueis could become a ghost, why couldn't Palpatine?
Any other villain other than Palpatine would be great.
Plagueis's ghost is highly unlikely though.
darklordoftech said:
I don't want any Darths. Vader not being the only Darth in the prequels was bad enough.
Look... in OT it is clearly stated that Anakin was given a Darth name after he was seduced to the dark side. It is also established that he became a Sith. This is a good indication that the name Darth has something to do with Sith.
And he was seduced by who? Who he calls "master"?
In OT there is enough evidence suggesting Darth was a Sith thing and Palpatine was also a Sith.
真実
imperialscum said:
darklordoftech said:
I don't want any Darths. Vader not being the only Darth in the prequels was bad enough.
Look... in OT it is clearly stated that Anakin was given a Darth name after he was seduced to the dark side. It is also established that he became a Sith. This is a good indication that the name Darth has something to do with Sith.
And he was seduced by who? Who he calls "master"?
In OT there is enough evidence suggesting Darth was a Sith thing and Palpatine was also a Sith.
The only other character who has a double/fake name in the OT that I can think of is Ben Kenobi, and Ben doesn't seem to be a title for him. So 'Darth' needn't, from the OT alone, be a title (though it works well as one).
Vader was seduced to the dark side, but he could have identified as the Dark Lord of the Sith on his own (how the name came about, and what exactly a Sith is, are never mentioned in the OT films). Maybe there was something about that tradition that appealed to him, whereas the Emperor was more about just using the dark side for himself, no affiliations except himself and his own creations (the Empire).
I'm not saying that's actually how it was going to be, just that that seems like a believable non-Palpatine-Sith explanation to me. Especially given how the term 'Sith' doesn't seem to be even mentioned in the ROTJ story conferences or planning. There isn't any inkling, as far as I can tell, in the OT of a longstanding historical struggle between not just the users of the sides of the Force but two specific traditions that embody each side, of which Palpatine and Darth Vader are the sole current members of one. In The Making of ROTJ, Palpatine is described as kind of a dark side counterpart to Yoda. And Yoda is described as more of a teacher than a Jedi. A high spiritual priest who knows the Force.
"Star Wars films are basically silent movies. And they're designed as silent movies, therefore the music carries a -- has a very large role in carrying the story, more than it would in a normal movie." -GL
"NOO! NOOOOOO!!" - Darth Vader
American Hominid said: The only other character who has a double/fake name in the OT that I can think of is Ben Kenobi, and Ben doesn't seem to be a title for him. So 'Darth' needn't, from the OT alone, be a title (though it works well as one).
Furthermore, Obi-Wan says, "A young Jedi named Darth Vader." The implication is that "Darth" is a first name, not a title.
darklordoftech said:
American Hominid said: The only other character who has a double/fake name in the OT that I can think of is Ben Kenobi, and Ben doesn't seem to be a title for him. So 'Darth' needn't, from the OT alone, be a title (though it works well as one).
Furthermore, Obi-Wan says, "A young Jedi named Darth Vader." The implication is that "Darth" is a first name, not a title.
You do realise that Obi-Wan was lying to Luke at that point? He couldn't say "A young Jedi named Anakin Skywalker..."
真実
If he had said "A young priest called Father O'Brien" there would be no assumption Father was his first name. His reference to Darth during the duel could easily be a reference to a title too.
It's a clear and present retcon but of all the crap in the PT/EU I have no serious problem with this.
American Hominid said:
imperialscum said:
darklordoftech said:
I don't want any Darths. Vader not being the only Darth in the prequels was bad enough.
Look... in OT it is clearly stated that Anakin was given a Darth name after he was seduced to the dark side. It is also established that he became a Sith. This is a good indication that the name Darth has something to do with Sith.
And he was seduced by who? Who he calls "master"?
In OT there is enough evidence suggesting Darth was a Sith thing and Palpatine was also a Sith.
The only other character who has a double/fake name in the OT that I can think of is Ben Kenobi, and Ben doesn't seem to be a title for him. So 'Darth' needn't, from the OT alone, be a title (though it works well as one).
Vader was seduced to the dark side, but he could have identified as the Dark Lord of the Sith on his own (how the name came about, and what exactly a Sith is, are never mentioned in the OT films). Maybe there was something about that tradition that appealed to him, whereas the Emperor was more about just using the dark side for himself, no affiliations except himself and his own creations (the Empire).
I'm not saying that's actually how it was going to be, just that that seems like a believable non-Palpatine-Sith explanation to me. Especially given how the term 'Sith' doesn't seem to be even mentioned in the ROTJ story conferences or planning. There isn't any inkling, as far as I can tell, in the OT of a longstanding historical struggle between not just the users of the sides of the Force but two specific traditions that embody each side, of which Palpatine and Darth Vader are the sole current members of one. In The Making of ROTJ, Palpatine is described as kind of a dark side counterpart to Yoda. And Yoda is described as more of a teacher than a Jedi. A high spiritual priest who knows the Force.
The thing is that it is not clearly stated or explained. What I was trying to say is that there is enough evidence that one can reasonably think Palpatine was a Sith. But then again there not clearly stated so one can reasonably think he wasn't.
But it irritates me when darklordoftech is trying to say that in OT Palpatine was not a Sith and presents that as some kind of fact. Same goes for "Darth".
真実
imperialscum said: darklordoftech is trying to say that in OT Palpatine was not a Sith and presents that as some kind of fact.
Kasdan asked Lucas how Palpatine, who was never a Jedi, can use The Force, and Lucas responded, "Anybody can use The Force." If Palpatine was a Sith, instead of saying, "Anybody can use The Force", Lucas would have said, "Sith can also use The Force."
imperialscum said: Same goes for "Darth".
I just said that I don't like that the prequels made "Darth" a title. You than said it's a fact that "Darth" was always a title.
darklordoftech said:
imperialscum said: darklordoftech is trying to say that in OT Palpatine was not a Sith and presents that as some kind of fact.
Kasdan asked Lucas how Palpatine, who was never a Jedi, can use The Force, and Lucas responded, "Anybody can use The Force." If Palpatine was a Sith, instead of saying, "Anybody can use The Force", Lucas would have said, "Sith can also use The Force."
Kasdan's question made an assumption that only Jedi can use the force. Lucas just corrected Kasdan's assumption by saying that everyone can use the force ("everyone" qualified everyone, including Sith). By no logical standard that is an implication that Palpatine was not a Sith.
For example, that's like asking basketball player if he can play football since he is not a professional player. And he would say that everyone can play football. Would that answer give you an indication that he is not a basketball player?
darklordoftech said:
imperialscum said: Same goes for "Darth".
I just said that I don't like that the prequels made "Darth" a title. You than said it's a fact that "Darth" was always a title.
You indeed said that prequels made a Darth a title. By that I assumed you implied that it could not be a title in OT. I then just said that there is enough indication that in OT that Darth could be a title in OT, if one chose to think so.
真実
Tack said:
What…the…
Sorry for my outburst, by the way.
Don't be, it was completely justified.
TV's Frink said:
Tack said:
What…the…
Sorry for my outburst, by the way.
Don't be, it was completely justified.
No need to fan the flames of a dispute that's been settled.