Props have a precedence in being varied in colour. Powers changing colour are slightly different, as that suggests the power changed, since it… y’know, changed.
If it was written that way… then yeah. Point is: it’s not and there’s no way to write it in.
Let’s not call people Trump, please.
I know, it was an exaggeration. I shouldn’t have said that.
“Exaggeration” doesn’t quite capture the jump from “I don’t like the change in colour because it doesn’t make story sense” to a homophobic white supremacist that’s killed over 210,000 people this year… 🙄
This is about as productive as an average political debate.
I’d go further: It’s about as productive as the Trump vs Biden debate.
JakeRyan is Trump in this scenario.Because THAT statement is productive. 🙄
I’m only disagreeing about concepts and content, I’m not actively trying to be an asshole to you.
But we’re just saying stuff like “I think it looks cool” while you’re saying “BUT ACTUALLY, there’s never been any red lighting in the movies before, so you can’t just show it without any explanation, OBJECTIVELY WRONG!”
Completely ignoring the fact that new Force powers have shown up all the time without explanation in these movies, and that’s how Force lightning became part of the franchise in the first place. That’s why I made that comparison, because it just feels like you’re sucking the fun out of a potentially neat idea.
And i didn’t resort to attacking you as a person, I talked about storytelling techniques and why introducing something that impacts the plot is different to changing something that had already been established. It’s not a new power, and if it is… it should be presented as a new power. But it isn’t.
You’re countering that with “it looks cool, and you’re like Donald Trump for disagreeing!” 🙄
But I already established that new powers can show up in Star Wars with no explanation. Force levitation showed up, and no one treated it like it was anything new. Force lightning showed up, and no one treated it like it was anything new. Force running showed up, and no one treated it like it was anything new. The list goes on. Red lightning isn’t really a new power anyway, and it doesn’t affect the plot, it’s just an aesthetic choice to highlight Palpatine’s power.
And the Trump comparison was a bit too extreme. But AniStar had just mentioned political debates, so it was right there.
If it was a new power, being treated like a new power and being reacted to accordingly, I’d agree with you. But it isn’t. Rey is prepared and recognises it, from her experience with Snoke and her own earlier use.
Looking at these other examples of new powers being established: people react to them. It affects what’s going on. Changing an established power in the middle of the climax, doing it without the ability to make characters react to the change, it just doesn’t work for me.
Being a dick because it’s easy to be a dick isn’t a great excuse.
This is about as productive as an average political debate.
I’d go further: It’s about as productive as the Trump vs Biden debate.
JakeRyan is Trump in this scenario.Because THAT statement is productive. 🙄
I’m only disagreeing about concepts and content, I’m not actively trying to be an asshole to you.
But we’re just saying stuff like “I think it looks cool” while you’re saying “BUT ACTUALLY, there’s never been any red lighting in the movies before, so you can’t just show it without any explanation, OBJECTIVELY WRONG!”
Completely ignoring the fact that new Force powers have shown up all the time without explanation in these movies, and that’s how Force lightning became part of the franchise in the first place. That’s why I made that comparison, because it just feels like you’re sucking the fun out of a potentially neat idea.
And i didn’t resort to attacking you as a person, I talked about storytelling techniques and why introducing something that impacts the plot is different to changing something that had already been established. It’s not a new power, and if it is… it should be presented as a new power. But it isn’t.
You’re countering that with “it looks cool, and you’re like Donald Trump for disagreeing!” 🙄
This is about as productive as an average political debate.
I’d go further: It’s about as productive as the Trump vs Biden debate.
JakeRyan is Trump in this scenario.
Because THAT statement is productive. 🙄
I’m only disagreeing about concepts and content, I’m not actively trying to be an asshole to you.
JakeRyan17 said:
If the Red Lightning is more dangerous, that should impact the stakes of the film, and be reacted to as being more dangerousHow could it have been perceived as any more dangerous than it is? He saps their life force and then single-handedly disables an entire fleet of thousands of ships.
The film as is doesn’t present him as more powerful, just directing that power to other places. If we see something new and different, our characters should react as if it’s new and different.
That might be an issue with the USB bus. Macs can read NTFS (Windows) drives, so it shouldn’t matter how it’s formatted. Is the enclosure new? If it’s not, could the enclosure be damaged?
Sith was never said in the OT…
Actually, there is a deleted scene from the conference room where a Sith Lord is mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Erf6s_wYJkYeah, I’ve seen that clip. Good stuff, should’ve been in the film.
It’s unlikely the internet nerds of 1977 were able to pass the clip around, though…so “Sith” was still definitely unknown to the majority of the world until Phantom.
“Sith” was on trading cards and toys that were released even prior to A New Hope. It didn’t spread over the internet, but it was known by the nerds and collectors of the time. Same with Palpatine’s name.
The difference with Return of the Jedi and The Emperor’s first use of lightning is that he is a new character. It’s established as he’s being established. Red Lightning would be introducing something different to what had been established before. That’s the point. If it had always been red, or always fluctuated colour between characters, this would be different.
And I get what you mean, but there are still different ways of establishing without “spoon-feeding”. Even using the example above, the change is what needs to be established again— because it’s changing something we’re already familiar with. If the Red Lightning is more dangerous, that should impact the stakes of the film, and be reacted to as being more dangerous, but that doesn’t happen. Also, part of the film’s plot revolves around Rey worrying that she is inherently evil. It matters that when she sees lighting directed at her, that it matches the Lightning she used.
Establishing unexplained things as the way they are is simply different to changing established concepts and powers.
What I took out of RoS which I really liked the idea of was how it explained Palpatines “stike me down” lines both in RoS and return of the jedi. I like to think that meant that if Luke struck him down in return of the jedi with anger he would of possessed Luke the same way Rey would of been possessed if she stuck him down in RoS through the sith ritual.
This is actually something I don’t like about TRoS. The literal nature of a possible spirit transfer being the real motivation behind one of the crucial moments of the original trilogy cheapens the moral implications for me. In Return of the Jedi, I always thought Palpatine was saying that anger and hatred were corrupting and destructive forces, and that even if Palpatine were to die, he still would have won by corrupting Luke. I realize that doesn’t literally make a ton of sense given Palpatine’s ambition and ruling an empire, but it makes sense in the context of the morality tale that the original trilogy was. This added motivation means there’s a reason for Luke to resist temptation other than showing poise and maturity in the face of evil.
That corruption is also what enables the transfer. That’s part of the poorly-executed explanation of how Rey kills Palpatine without being possessed at the end of Rise of Skywalker.
It’s a name that was created for that storyline. Palpatine, much like the term Sith, was used for the OT and its marketing materials. Sidious was treated as his truer name, with Palpatine being more of the disguise.
Every other film in the franchise, including first instalments of two other trilogies. This wasn’t like Lord of the Rings, where it’s one story spread over 6-9hrs. It was a first story, but he failed to tell a complete story.
A lot of Luke’s motivations were solidified by the conversation where he uses Sidious’ name: and describes the plot of the prequels. Abrams did everything he could to ignore as much of the saga as he could. He remade A New Hope, gave some nostalgia, didn’t complete any character arcs, then four years later strings together something that references his movie and a scene from RotS. He prioritised looks over story at every turn, and the films are so shallow because of it. Johnson told a story, even if people didn’t like the story he told. There are layers and connections to evolving the saga as a whole.
Last Jedi used Sidious and Rise of Skywalker used Palpatine based on the desire of one filmmaker to tie into the entire saga, and the other to just make a sequel to his film from four years prior and tie into his childhood toys.
The reason is that this wasn’t how Sith worked back then. This is perhaps the single good thing TROS did in making the Sith spirit canon, and I’d gladly take a retcon that improved the OT even if it makes the PT a little more silly.
I don’t think I understand this- by Sith spirit do you mean the idea that literally every spirit had transferred down the line and they were “all the Sith” inside Palpatine that he mentioned? I thought the general assumption was this wasn’t literal
But then why does Palpatine seem to gloat as he describes Darth Plagueis not being able to save himself from being killed? Shouldn’t he just be Plagueis?
Maybe because Palps killed him in his sleep and the person being killed needs to consciously transfer their spirit to a new host?
Well that confuses it a bit more- if the original point is the case, would all the Sith have built up in Plagueis only for Palpatine to not take them?
I simply saw it as Palpatine saying all of the Sith had figuratively led up to him, but he was just trying to use the transfer-power with Luke and then Rey (or Kylo) to get into a younger, healthier body.
I assumed that Palps meant that the spirits of all the Sith literally resided within him, otherwise he would have some new power that previous Sith did not have when he tried to transfer his consciousness to a new body. It would be weird to say that he was the first Sith to figure this out when this theory of spirit succession fits so well into the otherwise bizarre practice of the Rule of Two.
I think that makes some sense in the context of the movie, but not in full. The Sith are built on selfishness and the idea of living your entire life to continue building power for a future Sith contradicts that.
I thought the point of the Rule of Two was that Bane’s goal was for the cycle to eventually create the perfect Sith who would destroy the Jedi- Palpatine thought he was this perfect Sith and did almost succeed in destroying the Jedi.
Honestly now that I think about it, the Rule of Two makes no sense in the context of what the Sith believe
Well, if each consciousness was transferred since Bane, this would all be Darth Bane’s selfishness continuing, as he uses up body after body.
As for George’s desires… his were never static enough to have this type of conversation. He was constantly changing his mind, based on which story in that moment he was telling. He rarely considered the details of the other stories that were already done. That’s why even the prequels have so many continuity errors and why the series as a whole relies on unreliable narrators: George himself was the unreliable narrator.
What I took out of RoS which I really liked the idea of was how it explained Palpatines “stike me down” lines both in RoS and return of the jedi. I like to think that meant that if Luke struck him down in return of the jedi with anger he would of possessed Luke the same way Rey would of been possessed if she stuck him down in RoS through the sith ritual.
I interpreted the line “I am all sith” as meaning the past sith which had been possessed in this… unnatural way.I’m sure theres some overlapping story issues via novels\comic\sticker album somewhere that destroys all that but I personally enjoy this idea of the events.
I completely agree, and I think that was the intent.
Rain Johnson decided Sith live on? In the film that he didn’t write or direct? That not only rejected his outline, but also the outline and script (that rejected Johnson’s treatment) that still continued on from the film he made? He had that much influence on a film that contradicted everything he wrote?
Fascinating.
Or it’s just looking at basic storytelling. Things get set up, then paid off. If something is established one way for 8/9 films, a sudden change at the end of the last film will make people question it.
The modern film trope i dislike is prioritising looks over story. Changing the colour at the last minute just because it looks cool and different has no real merit to me.
Someone brought up the changing of saber colours, and that’s a bit different: because it’s a prop. We are already accustomed to props, costumes, and even lightsabers specifically having various colours across all nine films. Making this change doesn’t impact the story with questions of “why is it different?” That’s been established and set up.
When it comes to powers, especially in a scene where under-developed powers are are already a major focus, adding another new and unestablished element will distract away from what’s going on. If sucking that much life out of them gave him so much more power that things have changed, why does he need them to kill him to get a new body? He’s beyond rejuvenated, what’s the point? This type of change gets in the way of storytelling.
Again, if you changed it everywhere, so the power was established as such, that would be different. But introducing a new, unexplained element that makes us question the motivations of the villain in the third act of the 9th film… that’s just bad storytelling.
And we can play the ageist game of “back in my day…” or whatever. That’s irrelevant. The purpose of the scene is that Palpatine gets rejuvenated. If he goes beyond rejuvenation to more powerful than before, his motives for the rest of the film no longer make sense. It’s always been implied Palpatine was stronger than he let on in other films, and he didn’t do the crazy antics like he does with the fleet, because he never needed to and it would go against his goals in those films.
I’m just saying that if the movie came out in theatres that way, it would be confusing. It’s something new and different, with no introduction or setup, being introduced at the last possible moment.
Personally not a fan because of that. I guess the approach I try to make with any edit, fan or for work, is thinking story first, then cool looks. Doing something because it looks cool, even though it makes no sense, is kinda what gave us the mess that is Rise of Skywalker to begin with.
You’re making this way bigger than it actually is. I cannot understand for the life of me why you think this doesn’t make any sense.
Red lightning = more power. Even general audiences could understand that.
Based on what? Why is it more power? Electricity doesn’t work that way, we don’t have red lightning strikes…
It’s a different colour, so it would look like a different power. Where’d it come from? If it’s more powerful, why didn’t he use it before on Luke or Mace?
Well, since a lot of people didn’t ask that same question about the giant, fleet-destroying lightning storm, I think it’s fair to assume it came from him stealing Rey’s and Ben’s life force.
More of the same visual signifies more power. New visual suggests new power.
I’m just saying that if the movie came out in theatres that way, it would be confusing. It’s something new and different, with no introduction or setup, being introduced at the last possible moment.
Personally not a fan because of that. I guess the approach I try to make with any edit, fan or for work, is thinking story first, then cool looks. Doing something because it looks cool, even though it makes no sense, is kinda what gave us the mess that is Rise of Skywalker to begin with.
You’re making this way bigger than it actually is. I cannot understand for the life of me why you think this doesn’t make any sense.
Red lightning = more power. Even general audiences could understand that.
Based on what? Why is it more power? Electricity doesn’t work that way, we don’t have red lightning strikes…
It’s a different colour, so it would look like a different power. Where’d it come from? If it’s more powerful, why didn’t he use it before on Luke or Mace?
I’m just saying that if the movie came out in theatres that way, it would be confusing. It’s something new and different, with no introduction or setup, being introduced at the last possible moment.
Personally not a fan because of that. I guess the approach I try to make with any edit, fan or for work, is thinking story first, then cool looks. Doing something because it looks cool, even though it makes no sense, is kinda what gave us the mess that is Rise of Skywalker to begin with.
What color was TLJ Yoda’s lightning?
No force lightning, other than the Son’s, has been any colour but blue. Yoda called natural lightning down, which was also blue.
I guess the first question it makes me ask is “why is this the first time the colour has changed?”
Palpatine has always been all the Sith, based on how things were presented and how Return of the Jedi was recontextualised.
Any time something changes it’s nature or look, there needs to be a reason why. If Palpatine is being restored, that would take him back to where he was in prior films. If it makes him different from that, it’s a question as to why.
Saying “it’s a new colour, that means new power!”… well, exactly. That new power isn’t explained, and we already have a lot of new powers and power levels that have gone unexplained. If you were gonna go back and recolour all the lightning in AOTC, ROTS, & ROTJ to match, then I’d be on board. But just in this one film seems silly.
Palpatine can actually use red force lightning, I didn’t just randomly suggest it for the sake of referencing Mortis. We just haven’t seen him use it in live action yet.
When have we seen him use it? Is this from the legends/old EU that said force lightning came from squeezing random fruits?
I guess the first question it makes me ask is “why is this the first time the colour has changed?”
Palpatine has always been all the Sith, based on how things were presented and how Return of the Jedi was recontextualised.
Any time something changes it’s nature or look, there needs to be a reason why. If Palpatine is being restored, that would take him back to where he was in prior films. If it makes him different from that, it’s a question as to why.
Saying “it’s a new colour, that means new power!”… well, exactly. That new power isn’t explained, and we already have a lot of new powers and power levels that have gone unexplained. If you were gonna go back and recolour all the lightning in AOTC, ROTS, & ROTJ to match, then I’d be on board. But just in this one film seems silly.
I just feel like the colour doesn’t explain anything, and forces us to ask questions without answers.
If the monochromatic Exegol is the problem, I think changing up the colours of the planet, temple, or even just the mist/fog would better break up the blue than to introduce new powers/looks for established powers.