Ire wrote:
It depends on what you've read and personal taste really. Stay the fuck away from most of the stuff by KJA and Traviss. If you haven't read Stover I implore you to try his books. And have you read the comics and Novels by JJM?
Ok, looks like I misspoke. I have read JJM's work, specifically Knights of the Old Republic comic. Art's decent enough, there's an attempt at creating interesting characters but somehow it didn't quite pull together for me. I'm not chasing down friends and putting them in the Clockwork Orange seat demanding they experience the awesomeness. Certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I also see that Traviss was involved in the Mandalorian wank in the middle of the run.
Which Stover novels are worth the time?
I'd read Stackpole years and years back and remember him doing some really great stuff for Battletech. His Star Wars novels were underwhelming but I'm not sure whether it was his fault or executive meddling.
I'm going to say that I've always disliked the Rule of Two. Not because it doesn't make sense, because I think it does, but because it denied me my chance to see mass Jedi vs Sith combat on screen. And really, anything that reduces the number of possible lightsaber fights in a movie can only be a bad thing in my book.
It's stated that the with were on the cusp 5 centuries ago, but that Gravid's defection and tampering with their techniques set them back decades if not centuries
I never had a problem with the Rule of Two, and I'm certainly no fan of the Prequels.
Some of the criticisms raised here (like how come the Sith don't die out from random accidents) are interesting to wonder about, I guess, in a "why doesn't Marty McFly appear in outerspace when he goes back in time because the Earth moves" sort of way - but I think the Rule of Two is an acceptable part of the Sith mythology which highlights their selfish nature and lust for power. Even if it's logistically questionable, it fits nicely as a component of the mythology.
Also, it helps to explain why Vader and the Emperor are the only Sith in the Original Trilogy.
Another problem with the Rule of Two, what about Sith Lords that wish to go at it old school? Say an apprentice just slew his master and decides to ditch the Rule of Two and starts training more people in the ways of the Sith. Darth Bane based his rule pretty much on the honor system, and that's something that's not found in large supply among them.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)
Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula
O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
There should have been some selfish motivator for perpetuating the Sith line via the Rule of Two. Perhaps some arcane dark side technique for immortality that relies upon it?
I think Palpy and Vader were the only two due to conservation of detail. You don't introduce stuff that isn't important and clutters the story. Vader is originally the last of his line, presumably like the evil ninja who goes to work for a corrupt businessman. Jedi are all but extinct. The original Palpy was not Sith. He was supposed to be a weak leader whose generals are calling the shots, a figurehead. So we suppose Vader turned against the Jedi to help the Empire rise for whatever personal gain but the power base of the Empire is not the dark side.
By Empire Palpy is Sith but Jedi are still essentially wiped out. Can be inferred that Palpy has no Jedi hidden in his back pocket since there would be no other advantage to trying to turn a reluctant Luke to the Dark Side.
By Jedi Palpy is made a badass because Lucas said be needed a greater evil for Vader to turn from, Vader couldn't be the summation of evil here. That's a direct quote, not inference or supposition.
Now at this point we can either try to imagine that there were more apprentices and stuff in the Empire or we can assume what we saw in the movie is everything. At this point a rule of two seems to fit Palpy's personality. He's defeated the Jedi, he has taken over the galaxy, he's likely planning on living forever but not with force clone bs.
All of that works for me. And we also see what happens when an apprentice decides to thwart his master's wishes.
jollyreaper wrote:By Empire Palpy is Sith but Jedi are still essentially wiped out. Can be inferred that Palpy has no Jedi hidden in his back pocket since there would be no other advantage to trying to turn a reluctant Luke to the Dark Side.
Palpatine wasn't confirmed to be a Sith (even in the latter-day EU) until 1999. Frankly, I'd prefer the Emperor as some Hitleresque occult-enthusiast who doesn't know about Luke's existence until his sycophantic Force-sensitive advisers felt his presence in the Force and told him about it. It's one of the reasons I'd jettison ROTJ entirely (aside from being able to salvage Vader's character as a separate entity from Anakin Skywalker).
Well, I see it as three broad schools of accepting Star Wars.
1. All the movies are canon.
2. The original trilogy (before special editions) are canon.
3. Only the parts of the OT I like are canon.
I don't have the documentation in front of me to say when Palpy was made Sith but Empire was his first appearance and did imply an upgrade from ANH, at least if you read the official novel.
I actually agree with the need for Palpy to be a greater baddie in Jedi because otherwise it just looks like Vader had an intervention and is like "oh, guys, I've been making an ass out of myself. I'm do sorry."
I also do like the father/son dynamic and so wouldn't change that, I'd more want to fix the continuity and logic problems. Luke would not keep his father's last name, Ben would not be hiding out in Jedi gear while keeping a low profile, would not take Vader's son to hide on his homeworld, wouldn't lie about Vader murdering dad. I do love the big reveal in Empire so I would prefer for everyone to think Anakin really was dead, Ben believing he'd killed Anakin and simply saying he was killed in the Jedi purge. True from a certain point of view, just leaving out the part about leading the purge. Why lie? Because he wanted Luke to think of the man Anakin was, not the monster he became.
Yeah, the Emperor was definitely upgraded to some kind of dark side sorceror for TESB, but his connection to the Sith was never made until many years later. What I'm saying is that one could hand wave the novel and re-interpret the TESB film to retcon him as just some powerless Sith wannabe (although still Emperor of the galaxy, which is why everyone calls him "master" to his face and bows to his every whim).
For the prequels, I'd shift the father/son dynamic from Anakin/Palpatine to Darth/Tarkin because I don't think Vader's fall requires anything more than someone subtly manipulating and encouraging his baser instincts. Tarkin would fit that role well, IMO. It would also better explain Vader's deference to him in ANH.
Where the Sith ever even mentioned in the OT? As best I can recall it was just "the Dark Side."
And also, on a "worst ideas" tangent, having the Jedi Order's "uniform" be the same clothes old Ben was wearing while he was hiding on Tatooine was kinda dumb.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
IIRC, they threw around a lot of ideas for Jedi uniforms, but came back to the desert robes because they wanted the Jedi to be instantly recognizable as Jedi.
Vader is described as a "Dark Lord of the Sith" and "Sith Lord," both in narration and dialouge, in the A New Hope novelization, but "Sith" is never used in any of the OT movies.
Last edited by TC Pilot on 2012-06-25 04:51pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."
Galvatron wrote:IIRC, they threw around a lot of ideas for Jedi uniforms, but came back to the desert robes because they wanted the Jedi to be instantly recognizable as Jedi.
Though it does defeat the purpose of Obi-Wan trying to hide incognito on Tatooine. Still, given his hermit existence, we know he got away with it.
Galvatron wrote:IIRC, they threw around a lot of ideas for Jedi uniforms, but came back to the desert robes because they wanted the Jedi to be instantly recognizable as Jedi.
Just like Jews going into hiding under the Nazis while wearing full orthodox garb. Ben Kenobi, master of disguise. Nazis hiding out in Argentina still wearing jackboots and armbands.
I completely understand why they did it but it makes no sense. It would make more sense if they wore simple black clothes like Luke in ROTJ, not exactly the same but with the idea of simple functionality, no gaudy fluff. Luke didn't find authentic Jedi clothes but followed the aesthetic. Calm guys waring black speaking in measured tones, especially in bad situations, you know they're Jedi before the lightsabers even ignite.
Besides, the lightsaber works just as well for clearly pointing out Jedi to the audience. I actually think the opening scene would have been more effective if the Jedi were conclusively revealed AS Jedi only after they were attacked. Sort of showing that the Jedi usually try to hide their presence. The protocol droid actually had to confirm to the Nemoidians that they were Jedi in the first place.
Though sending Jedi dressed as obvious Jedi was also an intentional move on Valorum's part, to send a very clear, very serious message to the Trade Federation.
I like the idea of some Jedi operating openly and some in secret. They are warrior-monks working for the greater good, shaolin and Templar mixed with white hat cowboy. Some will be teachers, some healers, all can defend the weak and bring justice. A master will usually have an apprentice but some only operate alone.
Given the acrobatics and mind tricks, a Jedi would be the ultimate secret agent and spy. The lightsaber isn't even required. The lightsaber would be there as a bit of theater to drive home a point since nobody else but a force user could use one effectively in combat. But it's not like a Jedi is disarmed when without one.
Based on what Lars wears... the exact same thing as Obi-Wan, the robes of a Jedi don't seem like something that stands out.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
