Sign In

Thrawn or Xizor

Author
Time

Now, my leap into EU isn't even close to being over. I've only read portions of Shadows of the Empire, and the parts I did read, I found good. Later on I'll try to buy it in paperback instead of reading the ebook to get a better perspective for my own personal opinion, and then move onto the Thrawn Trilogy.

Until then, I'm interested in everyone's opinions of these two central EU villains and their tales.

So far I see a trend of Thrawn Trilogy being almost universally accepted as great, while Shadows seems to be more of a mixed back.

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time

Xizor was a pain in the butt. As was Shadows of Empire. The Thrawn trilogy was ok, but Thrawn was a bit annoying.

Author
Time

Xizor was a waste of a character, really.  It's been a while since I read "Shadows.." but from what I remember, Xizor's main ambition was to make Vader look like a fool so that he could be the Emperor's second in command.  Why go to all that effort to be someone's lackey?  Why not have ambitions to overthrow the Emperor?  It was entertaining enough to get me through the book, but was completely illogical.  Thrawn may have been annoying at times and the Ysalmiri (sp?) were a stretch for me, but at least Thrawn was a badass.  Not a waste like Xizor.

Author
Time

Shadows was a terrible book.  No character acted the way they were supposed to.  Part of the book is Leia fighting against some kind of pheremones Xizor lets off that makes her want to make out with him.  It's really weird.  And EVERYTHING from the beginning of RotJ is set up.  The Boushh disquise, the thermal detonator, everything comes together in a nice little bow.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress / Facebook / Twitter

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress / Twitter

Author
Time
DarkFather said:

Until then, I'm interested in everyone's opinions of these two central EU villains and their tales.

So far I see a trend of Thrawn Trilogy being almost universally accepted as great, while Shadows seems to be more of a mixed back.

 

 In many ways Thrawn is the more compelling villain. Right off the bat, he's the central antagonist in a galaxy spanning trilogy, comparted to Xixor, who's the baddie of a much smaller story sandwiched between 'Empire' and 'Jedi.'

Thrawn avoids any comparison with Vader because he's basically an anti-Vader. Cool, calculatuting, and a good manager. I also think this is a weakness dramatically. Zahn goes so out of his way to show what a swell guy Thrawn is, you find yourself wondering why you're rooting against him. He gives polite pep talks, and is very forgiving. (Zahn does a similar thing with Talon Kardde. He's the nicest most kidnest most honest crime lord in the galaxy, and even Mara Jade is a great person minus her one character flaw of being obsessed with killing Luke). In fact, Thrawn is so perfect and brilliant, when he dies it feels like one of the least satisfying endings ever. "How did THAT happen?!?!" you'll ask yourself. It feels like if at the end of ROTJ Palpatine had tripped on his own robe and died falling down the stairs.

Xixor spends his novel playing opposite Vader, and frankly NO ONE looks cool when compared to Big Black. However, as a sinister crime lord he's a good villain. He's a little 'Fu Manchu' with his elegant robes and evil scheme. His plan to chemically seduce Leia is at least unique, and the battle at his Skyhook palace is a major setpiece that felt very in line with the action of the OT.

If you like Thrawn, STOP at 'The Last Command." In Zahn's other books, Zahn bends over backwards explaining that not only is Thrawn the greatest person ever born, he's also completely ethical, moral, and always right. The universe would have been a better place if stupid Luke and the gang hadn't stopped old Thrawny. Stupid heroes.

I can not imagine any feasible plot where Xixor would have been in the slighest bit reasonable to make a play for being the Emperor. He's a criminal and an alien who lives in the shadows. Any plot where he thought he could take over the entire Empire would have strained credibility to the breaking point. I found his goal to take personal vengeance on Vader and in the process make himself the second most powerful man in the galaxy a pretty solid plot.

I'd say Thrawn is the more interesting, but hampered by a plot I don't care for, and I think text-book Mary Sueism (A new character who completely overshadows the real characters while showing how brilliant the author is). Prince Xixor is a fine villian for his role, which is a smaller story in every respect which is hampered as it seems designed to set up minutia for ROTJ rather than just cut loose.

Regardless, the Thrawn Trilogy and SOTE are two of my favorite EUs.

Author
Time

Thrawn was by far the better villain. He was well thought out, and really worked. In many ways, was a perfect replacment villain for Darth Vader and the Emperor.

I am actually one of those guys who really liked Shadows of the Empire. It is a flawed book, but I liked it. And I even really liked Dash Rendar, I thought he was much more than just a Han Solo stand in that most people see him as. To me, he really worked as a character and added something to the story.

Xizor on the other hand, I thought it was a cool idea going with the whole intergalactic crime organization. The character in general, really worked. The thing with Palpatine trusting him so much, really made the Emperor out to be a total dunce. The idea that Xizor was in the throne room listening to Palps. "Son of Skywalker" conversation really bugs me, because that just wouldn't happen. Also Xizors obession with trying to humilate Vader in the eyes of the Emperor and lose his son at the same time, was a bit weak.

As for whoever said Xizor was a waste of a character whose only ambition was to be the Emperor's lacky, that was not it at all, you must have really missed a lot when reading the book. Xizor did want to be the Emperor's right hand man, but only as a necessary step in making his way up the ladder. Xizor was already head of the galaxies largest crim syndicate, he was a very powerful person, he considered himself third most powerful in the galaxy, right after Vader. His goal was to be first. He didn't care for the Emperor, he wanted to use him. Though, as shown by the way Vader totally owns him, he had no freakin idea what kind of powers he was messing with.

At the end of the book, the Emperor hits that he let Xizor in to his confidence in order to test Vader, and that he never really trusted Xizor. Fine, that sound okay, but still, having him in the throne room listening to extemely important conversations??? Weakest bit of the book to me.

As for, "Part of the book is Leia fighting against some kind of pheremones Xizor lets off that makes her want to make out with him."

LOL, that is the funniest way I could imagine that being explined. It was part of the book, as in, a few pages and a minor part of the story. Leia has a meeting with Xizor, and he releases pheremones to make her attracted to him, she realizes something weird is going on, and fights it off and resists, and he gets pissed off and locks her in her quarters. Also, I am pretty sure it wasn't making her "want to make out with him" for much as something else. Still don't see why people make such a big deal about that part of the story, it wasn't that unbelievable, essentially she was being drugged.

I also don't see what is so wrong with the story making everything from ROTJ "come together in a nice little bow". Leia had to get the detonator and the bounty hunter armor from someplace, what is so wrong about the story explaining where she got it from. Chewie has his hair cut differently in SOTE in order to resemble a famous Wookie bounty hunter, which explains his different hair style in ROTJ. Sure, this stuff doesn't need to be explained, but I don't see a problem with it doing so. To me, the least crimes of the prequels are far worse than the harshed crimes of SOTE. I'd take SOTE over any of the prequels any day of the week.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
C3PX said:

I also don't see what is so wrong with the story making everything from ROTJ "come together in a nice little bow". Leia had to get the detonator and the bounty hunter armor from someplace, what is so wrong about the story explaining where she got it from.

 

In ROTJ it looked like the bounty hunter disguise was a cool thing the main characters had come up with. Shadows takes that away from them and makes it somebody else's idea.

Shadows is full of bogus stuff that doesn't fit in and doesn't fit the films and a lot of bullshit "explanation" for how things got the way they did in ROTJ. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't pushed as THE story of what happened between ESB and ROTJ, but it was and as such you're effectively force-fed this third rate fan fiction as a rightful part of the Star Wars saga. Lucas liked it, which is a bad sign. And he stuffed Bash Fender's bleedin ship into the SE. Expanded universe doesn't belong in the OT.

Xizor was a Mary Sue, as was Bash Fender and Jix, and they flogged Boba Fett but good in the comic, which just creeps me out. And the comic even had Jabba talking in basic, which doesn't fit him at all.

Shadows really annoys me. It's got to be one of the most annoying things in the expanded universe. It's not as bad as the prequels but it's in that direction. I don't have much time for silly revisionist nonense in Star Wars, whether it comes from Lucas or from the EU.

Author
Time

First off, I am sorry to hear someone force fed you SOTE, that must have sucked. Personally, I read it of my own free will, which I am sure contributed to my enjoyment of it.

As for not having time for silly revisionist nonsense in Star Wars, I suppose this includes the extremely revisionist Empire Strikes Back, where the main villain and the father of the hero were merged into one character, or the even more revisionist Return of the Jedi where "the other" Yoda talked about turns out to be Luke's former love interest, who also happens to be his sister. Do you even realize what revisionist bullcrap two thirds of the OT are?

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Vaderisnothayden said:
C3PX said:

I also don't see what is so wrong with the story making everything from ROTJ "come together in a nice little bow". Leia had to get the detonator and the bounty hunter armor from someplace, what is so wrong about the story explaining where she got it from.

 

In ROTJ it looked like the bounty hunter disguise was a cool thing the main characters had come up with. Shadows takes that away from them and makes it somebody else's idea.

Shadows is full of bogus stuff that doesn't fit in and doesn't fit the films and a lot of bullshit "explanation" for how things got the way they did in ROTJ. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't pushed as THE story of what happened between ESB and ROTJ, but it was and as such you're effectively force-fed this third rate fan fiction as a rightful part of the Star Wars saga. Lucas liked it, which is a bad sign. And he stuffed Bash Fender's bleedin ship into the SE. Expanded universe doesn't belong in the OT.

Xizor was a Mary Sue, as was Bash Fender and Jix, and they flogged Boba Fett but good in the comic, which just creeps me out. And the comic even had Jabba talking in basic, which doesn't fit him at all.

 

I agree that a lot of the "ROTJ" set-up felt awkwardly inserted, and a bit unnneccessary. I'd never laid awake at night wondering how Leia got a thermal detonator.

I'm confused at your objection that it was pushed as THE storyline. Isn't all EU "THE' storyline either between, after, or before the real stories of the movie?

I don't see how Xixor is a 'Mary Sue.' He's the villain, does villainous things to forward the plot, is clearly and repeatedly thwarted by the heroes and then pwned by the other villains.

I dislike the term 'Mary Sue' in general, but Thrawn is one of the few places the application of it seems clear. Thrawn is a new character who is smarter, better, and cooler than the actual Star Wars heroes, and by 'Outbound Flight' we learn he's clearly morally in the right as well, only wanting to unite the galaxy to fight the Yuhzhong Vohg. Xixor is none of these things. He's a despicable villain who presents challenges that the heroes overcome by being better than he is.  

Author
Time

Xizor seems very Count Dracula to me. He's an evil, reptilian royal who puts on a facade of being accomodating to his guests, and then turns on them. He tries to seduce Leia (Mina). Luke would be sort of the Jonathan Harker since Han isn't present. Vader would be the Van Helsing who sees Xizor for what he is, outmanuevers his schemes, and eventually destroys him.

It's sketchy, but I do see more than passing similarities. After I know more, I might do a compare/contrast.

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
TheBoost said:

I agree that a lot of the "ROTJ" set-up felt awkwardly inserted, and a bit unnneccessary. I'd never laid awake at night wondering how Leia got a thermal detonator.

 

I never lied awake at night wondering where she got the detonator either, but I certainly don't see it as some unforgivable sin that SOTE explains it as some people do. I really never saw the explainations as all that awkward either. Leader of the Rebel Alliance on Imperial homeworld, a desguise wasn't exactly a bad idea. To me it makes it more interesting that she hung onto it and used it to infiltrate J the H's palace. Sure, it wasn't necessary, but I really never saw it as doing any harm either. Unlike "Anakin built Threepio" kind of explainations, which do do a lot of harm.

Good comparison dark father. Very interesting.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

As for not having time for silly revisionist nonsense in Star Wars, I suppose this includes the extremely revisionist Empire Strikes Back, where the main villain and the father of the hero were merged into one character, or the even more revisionist Return of the Jedi where "the other" Yoda talked about turns out to be Luke's former love interest, who also happens to be his sister. Do you even realize what revisionist bullcrap two thirds of the OT are?

That's the OT. The OT has a right to be revisionist. Other stuff, coming along years later, does not. The OT was made in basically one long creative period  from the mid 70s down to 1983. It is also the main Star Wars material. Other stuff that is secondary material and/or comes along much later (years after the original Star Wars creative period was over) does not  have the same license to take liberties with the story.

Don't tell me you're happy with the way the prequels reinvented the Star Wars story. Or the way the special edition tried to rewrite the story of the OT (Han shooting second). I think it's easy to see how that sort of revisionism is different from the valid sort that went on during the creation of the OT.

Similarly, while the OT might have the right to be revisionist as regards stuff from the OT, I don't think it's necessarily the case that spinoff material has that right. Spinoff material is subordinate. It should respect what was done in the original material and try to stay true to it.

First off, I am sorry to hear someone force fed you SOTE, that must have sucked. Personally, I read it of my own free will, which I am sure contributed to my enjoyment of it.

I didn't. I read it because I felt I HAD to because it was being pushed as THE story of what went on between the films.

Author
Time

 

TheBoost said:

I'm confused at your objection that it was pushed as THE storyline. Isn't all EU "THE' storyline either between, after, or before the real stories of the movie?

Shadows was made a special fuss of, treated as more than just ordinary EU.

I don't see how Xixor is a 'Mary Sue.' He's the villain, does villainous things to forward the plot, is clearly and repeatedly thwarted by the heroes and then pwned by the other villains.

Xizor is a Mary Sue because the story goes "Look at our cool villain, look he's so cool he can rival Darth Vader and get fresh with Leia."

Author
Time

Thrawn was the best! he had the military skills to do anything. too bad he got stabbed in the back. xizor was boring and i don't feel he played a big part in the story.

Author
Time
Vaderisnothayden said:

That's the OT. The OT has a right to be revisionist. Other stuff, coming along years later, does not. The OT was made in basically one long creative period  from the mid 70s down to 1983. It is also the main Star Wars material. Other stuff that is secondary material and/or comes along much later (years after the original Star Wars creative period was over) does not  have the same license to take liberties with the story.

Well, I'm sure someone like Anchorhead would probably disagree and say that only the original Star Wars is the "main Star Wars material" and the sequels took liberties with the story that it shouldn't have.  I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the prequels were right.  I'm just saying that there are other viewpoints out there.  Our generally collective viewpoint about the OT is just a viewpoint, and there's nothing really that makes our point of view more valid than anyone else's.  I believe that our viewpoint is better than the viewpoint of the PT gushers, but that doesn't make it so.  And I love the OT, but I can see the flaws it has, particularly the ones created through the revisionism that the sequels laid into it.  Do I accept them and like them?  Yes.  And to a much lesser extent I enjoy the prequels, but I acknowledge the flaws and continuity holes in all of them.  I can't give the OT a pass just because I prefer it and because its revisionism (mainly) got through much more successfully.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, I'm sure someone like Anchorhead would probably disagree and say that only the original Star Wars is the "main Star Wars material" and the sequels took liberties with the story that it shouldn't have.  I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the prequels were right.  I'm just saying that there are other viewpoints out there.  Our generally collective viewpoint about the OT is just a viewpoint, and there's nothing really that makes our point of view more valid than anyone else's.  I believe that our viewpoint is better than the viewpoint of the PT gushers, but that doesn't make it so.  And I love the OT, but I can see the flaws it has, particularly the ones created through the revisionism that the sequels laid into it.  Do I accept them and like them?  Yes.  And to a much lesser extent I enjoy the prequels, but I acknowledge the flaws and continuity holes in all of them.  I can't give the OT a pass just because I prefer it and because its revisionism (mainly) got through much more successfully.

I think you can. The OT's later revisionism came as part of the same extended period of creative activity that started with the making of the first film. As long as that period continued, fucking around with the story was more justifiable than it was after Lucas had left the stuff for a long while and then returned with a different attitude. In effect, it was all a work in progress as long as it wasn't allowed to sit for long without being worked on. Whereas it was not so much a work in progress after it had been dropped for a while. I'm sure Lucas considered it a work in progress later on, but the intervening years gave it a status as a finished work of sorts, despite the potential for more films. And in the intervening years Lucas clearly broke with the Star Wars mentality he'd been in during the OT creative years, because when he returned he created work of a totally different mentality. This break in mentality, contrasting with the way the old films had much in common in mentality, underlines the validity of the idea of the idea of one creative period with one ongoing work, with revision justifiable within that period but not justifiable in a separate later creative period.

Furthermore, the very fact that the OT's revisionism resulted in a trilogy that works well is a point in favor of its revisionism, unlike the PT and SE's revisionism, which was destructive.

The later two OT films are far less easily divided off from the first film than the PT is from the OT. There was this long gap in time between the OT and the PT and when Lucas returned and made the OT he made films with a drastically different mentality from the OT. There are mentality differences between the OT films but not huge ones. Nor were there any many-year breaks between the making of the OT films. The PT and the SE were made after a long break and in a drastically different mentality. As such, they can be divided off from the OT to a degree far more than any OT film can be separated from the others.

Also, ROTJ far more completes the story than the first film. And while there were supposed to be other trilogies of films, the OT clearly establishes itself as one complete story within itself, despite its links to other potential trilogies. The OT does not NEED a PT to complete it. Sure, you're left curious about the backstory, but it's not necessary. But the first film very much leaves the story open and unfinished. Darth Vader not being killed off just shouts the need for a sequel. As does the unresolved romantic stuff and the beginnings of Luke's Jedi training. The unresolved rebel-imperial war could be left open at the end of a sort-of finished story, but the openness of it does further add to the picture of the first film being very much an unfinished story. But by the time of ROTJ's end we have a finished story. A sequel trilogy was never needed and the prequel trilogy, while always tempting, was never essential. The OT stands as one whole and stands well by itself.

So yes we can give the OT revisionism a pass while not giving a pass to the PT and SE revisionism.

But if somebody wants to take the first film by itself that's their prerogative. However, I think the OT-only approach is more valid. And both are more valid than any approach that acknowledges the PT or the SE.

Author
Time
Vaderisnothayden said:

That's the OT. The OT has a right to be revisionist.

Why is that exactly? In fact, I find both those things I mentioned as very irritating retcons. If George could retcon the snot out of his movies back then, why isn't he allowed to do it now?

First off, I am sorry to hear someone force fed you SOTE, that must have sucked. Personally, I read it of my own free will, which I am sure contributed to my enjoyment of it.

I didn't. I read it because I felt I HAD to because it was being pushed as THE story of what went on between the films.

 

At the end of the day, it is still just EU. Not sure why you felt obligated to do so. All the other EU books are being pushed as THE story after the trilogy, before the sags, and all the spaces inbetween. Do you read each one of those? The Force Unleashed is THE story between the trilogies, doesn't mean you HAVE to read the tripe.

Being a fan of something is suppose to be because you enjoy it. I cannot imagine turning what is suppose to be pleasure into a chore, and somehow feeling obligated to throw my money at something I don't want, and to waste my precious time reading something I don't like.

Sometimes you come off sounding like you are a victim of Lucas and his evil greedy plots, I don't mean to sound like a Lucas apologist by any means, but you must realize, you are only a victim of yourself. For example, I didn't like Indiana Jones ATKOFTS. When it was released, I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it, so I never spent the money to buy a ticket, I ended up watching it much later for free, and I still wish I hadn't seen it at all. It is awful, George really screwed it up, but he didn't force me to see it, even though he was pushing it as THE story that came after The Last Crusade. Had I went and spent the money to see it, even though I had heard enough about it to already know it was the shit it was, I could be the only one to blame for it.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:
Vaderisnothayden said:

That's the OT. The OT has a right to be revisionist.

Why is that exactly? In fact, I find both those things I mentioned as very irritating retcons. If George could retcon the snot out of his movies back then, why isn't he allowed to do it now?

I already went into the answer to that in detail (see my last post).

But to elaborate on that further... look at the context of his retcons and revisionism:

In the OT you have retconning as part of the ongoing process of creating the OT, which is the great work of Star Wars. The retcons leave some bits that don't look great (some of Ben's lines look a bit funny, for example) but it's done as part of films that work. All three original Star Wars films keep up some form of the same spirit and mentality and they work and work as a unit and they do not betray what went before.

Whereas with the prequels the revisionism is part of a project that totally betrayed the spirit and mentality of the great stuff that went before. Films that failed. And Lucas had already stabbed the OT in the back by mutilating it in the SE, which took from the validity of everything he did after that point. The prequel revisionism comes after Lucas had already tried to make Han shoot second, which goes beyond retcon into full on giving Star Wars the finger. And the prequel revisionism is very much part of that reenvisioning of Star Wars that led to soulless crap films that betrayed and screwed up Star Wars.

Whereas the OT retcons enhanced the films in certain ways -neatly wrapping up the love triangle, giving Leia more significance, creating a deeper bond between Luke and Leia and giving Darth Vader a whole new dimension. 

The lack of quality of the prequels and the way they betrayed Star Wars is very relevant when judging the validity of their revisionism.

And there's no getting away from Lucas's big break from Star Wars. Lucas took some breaks in between making the OT films, but he didn't leave Star Wars behind for years in between those films and come back with a different attitude. With the SE and the PT, he left Star Wars behind and came back without the magic that had made Star Wars work. And without that magic that was what was needed to make it work, he didn't have the license to fuck with the OT's stuff. If he'd done mediocre prequel films that were at least loyal to his OT-era vision then I would have found them significantly less annoying. But he did one mediocre revisionist film and two awful revisionist films.

And now every last Sith is called Darth something or other. Darth Toilet Seat.

At the end of the day, it is still just EU. Not sure why you felt obligated to do so. All the other EU books are being pushed as THE story after the trilogy, before the sags, and all the spaces inbetween. Do you read each one of those? The Force Unleashed is THE story between the trilogies, doesn't mean you HAVE to read the tripe.

Shadows was pushed as more than all those other EU stories.

Being a fan of something is suppose to be because you enjoy it. I cannot imagine turning what is suppose to be pleasure into a chore, and somehow feeling obligated to throw my money at something I don't want, and to waste my precious time reading something I don't like.

If you care about something, you can care about where it is taken and what's done with it. Then you may investigate areas of its development you don't particularly enjoy because the core thing matters to you. 

Sometimes you come off sounding like you are a victim of Lucas and his evil greedy plots, I don't mean to sound like a Lucas apologist by any means, but you must realize, you are only a victim of yourself.

I would disagree. I didn't mutilate the OT or destroy the saga with the PT. Nor did I push Shadows as important and I didn't make it a load of fan fictiony crap. 

 

Author
Time
Vaderisnothayden said:

 

 

Xizor is a Mary Sue because the story goes "Look at our cool villain, look he's so cool he can rival Darth Vader and get fresh with Leia."

 

 So... you'd be more compelled by a villain who isn't cool, doesn't try to challenge the status quo, and leaves the heroes alone? (and in case you forgot, he was pwned by his Darthness and Leia kicked him in the nuts)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:

 

 

Xizor is a Mary Sue because the story goes "Look at our cool villain, look he's so cool he can rival Darth Vader and get fresh with Leia."

 

 So... you'd be more compelled by a villain who isn't cool, doesn't try to challenge the status quo, and leaves the heroes alone? (and in case you forgot, he was pwned by his Darthness and Leia kicked him in the nuts)

An EU villain got stuffed right into the OT story and they designed it so it was basically "Look how cool our villain is!" With him taking liberties with the film characters. It was fucking annoying. Don't forget, this story was pushing the implausible idea that the emperor would treat an alien crimelord as being on a level with Vader. It all felt so fan-fictiony. The whole thing felt like a fan pushing their own favorite fan-character villain into the OT storyline. It was really pushing it.

And as regards coolness of villains, I do have an issue with Star Wars villains being overly done up as "cool", because the OT didn't do that and the PT did. It's more tolerable when it's just EU, but Shadows was pushed as more than that. It was full of characters who were supposed to be terribly coool, which is one of the reasons it came off like fan fiction instead of part of the OT storyline.

As for leaving the heroes alone, obviously villains are supposed to bother the heroes, but they don't have to use mind-altering sexual attraction effects on them. I hate that sort of thing. And it's such a fan thing to have their pet villain try that on Leia.

And he can try to challenge the status quo all he likes, but putting him on the level of Darth Vader is pushing it.

Author
Time

I'd think that would be one of the rewarding things about the story: a slimeball weasel that feels he needs a bunch of pheromones to attract a mate, that ends up getting owned by a worthy villain.

"Fuck you. All the star wars movies were excellent. none of them sucked. Also, revenge of the sith is the best."

- DarthZorgon (YouTube)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Again, I don't think Xizor was ever really shown as the super badass rival to Vader you think he was, Vaderisnohayden. Far from being "overly done up as 'cool'" I think they might have gone a little far in making him over the top pathetic.

We see the story from Xizor's and Vader's perspectives. From Xizor's view, he is totally winning and making chumps of both the Emperor and Vader. When seeing it from Vader's view, he is getting very jealous, because the Emperor seems to be falling for Xizor's tricks. When we finally learn Palps view, we get the impression he knew what was going on the whole time, and just let it play out, for Vader's benefit or for his own amusement. Sith do have some twisted tastes. So throughout the whole book, Xizor's biggest achievement is making Vader pissed off at him, which honestly isn't hard to do, just ask any of those poor officers who died of a good choking. And making Vader pissed off at you is basically the same thing as putting a pistol in your mouth and pulling the trigger.

Really what we have here is a rottweiler on a leash being held back by his master, while an annoying little pomeranian continually barks and yaps at him. Dumb pomeranian taunts him and runs around him barking and doing flips while the rottweiler's master holds the leash and says "easy boy, stay, stay". Finally, to the pomeranian's horror, the master lets go of the leash and watches with amusement as the rottweiler eats the pomeranian.

Far from being a cool badass villain, I see Xizor as a fool who gets way in over his head. We have these big larger than life characters, Princess Leia, Darth Vader etc, and stupid little Xizor decides he can jump in and play with them. He thinks he can seduce Leia, and he gets a knee to the stones. He thinks he can mess with Luke Skywalker and his palace gets blown up. He thinks he can best Vader, and he gets squished like a bug. It is only ever from Xizor's delusional perspective in the book that we see him as a cool badass villain to rival the best. Everytime something goes bad in his plans, Xizor brushes it off, no big deal, I'll just build another palace etc. His world was crashing around him due to his messing with the most powerful people in the galaxy, and the delusional idiot still thinks he is winning.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time

I remember Xizor as a little annoying. I felt that he looked and sounded like a villain cliché: You know a reptilian bad guy named Xizor... right... good for an episode of the Thundercats, but for Star Wars? Let's say I was not very impressed.

Author
Time
TMBTM said:

I remember Xizor as a little annoying. I felt that he looked and sounded like a villain cliché: You know a reptilian bad guy named Xizor... right... good for an episode of the Thundercats, but for Star Wars? Let's say I was not very impressed.

 

  u should hear wat he sounds like in forces of corruption. he sounds really unconditioned. he more reminded me of a timid little kid.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

Chewie has his hair cut differently in SOTE in order to resemble a famous Wookie bounty hunter, which explains his different hair style in ROTJ.

Chewie has a different hairstyle in ROTJ?

Chewie has a hairstyle?

 

War does not make one great.