The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Duros 2.0 (and a poll!)
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Characters, Droids, and Species -> Duros 2.0 (and a poll!) Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which version of Starship Intuition best fits Duros?
v1.00 as presented in WEG's GG4
22%
 22%  [ 2 ]
v2.00 excellent pilot/navigators, well traveled through the galaxy
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
v2.01 excellent pilot/navigators+
66%
 66%  [ 6 ]
v2.02 excellent pilot/navigators
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 9

Author Message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2017 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Bren wrote:
Don't we only know Anakin is a full-fledged Jedi Knight from the prequels?

No.

Obi-Wan: Yes, I was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father.
Forgot that. Then take your pick:

1. The learner-master is a reference to their prior relationship in a fairly straightforward apprentice-knight-master categorization. Everyone except the master is still a learner.

2. Like many real world students Vader refers to the prior student (learner) - teacher (master) relationship he had with Obi-Wan. In the same way that someone in their 40s might refer to an influential high school or college coach as "coach" even though they no longer have that relationship or even if the former student is now himself a coach.

Bren wrote:
Because that's the name Anakin took when he turned to the Dark Side and Obi-Wan (unlike Luke) gave up on Vader ever returning from the Dark Side. So when Obi faces him, to Obi-Wan Anakin is dead. He is Darth now.
Whill wrote:
Joe Sidious? Joe Maul? Joe Tyranus? Joe Vader? "Only a master of evil, Joe." Darth is more of a title than some common first name. Obi-Wan wouldn't just call this evil betrayer who slaughtered Jedi younglings and joined the Sith by his current first name as if the last time they met it was a drinking contest in a cantina.
If Darth is a title (BTW where is that stated in a movie?) it's like referring to Baron Harkonnen as "Baron." Perfectly reasonable.

Whill wrote:
By the way, I have answers to all those questions I asked because I like having all the films work together. But I don't think you missed the point that in the original SW film, Vader and Luke's father were separate characters. Obi-Wan's pupil actually named Darth Vader betrayed the Jedi and killed Luke's father, a full-fledged Jedi Knight. On the Death Star, Obi-Wan calls his former pupil by his actual first name, Darth. The sequels retconned all this and now we have "truth from a certain point of view."
Also where do the sequels make Darth a title?

Bren wrote:
I’m not going to worry about how the Princess’ consular ship got from the diplomatic mission she mentions when questioned to the middle of the battle over Scaris.
Whill wrote:
Even in 1977 the diplomatic mission was always just a lie, and it still is.
Says you. If a lie its rather foolish to claim something so easily contradicted by available sources. I seem to recall the radio play had her on a diplomatic mercy mission as cover for a Rebel mission.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 1983

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read somewhere in Star Wars Lore that "Darth Vader" translates from (I think) Dutch into "Dark Father."

My understanding about "Darth" being a title is that it (along with the "Sith" faction) came from either the EU (and Lucas just decided to roll with it) or from a novelization of one of the films (and Lucas decided to roll with it).

Leia kissing Luke is another indicator that Lucas didnt have the ultimate result in mind at the onset.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 3916
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2017 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Says you. If a lie its rather foolish to claim something so easily contradicted by available sources. I seem to recall the radio play had her on a diplomatic mercy mission as cover for a Rebel mission.

It is interesting that you request film evidence for the Darth title, but here you cite the radio drama. Anyway, now it is even more foolish to expect Vader to buy the "diplomatic mission" story in light of him just a little while before that conversation he had personally witnessed Leia's ship escape out of the Rebel flagship he was on at the end the Battle of Scarif. Since Leia isn't considered a foolish character, it is reasonable to assume that she wasn't actually trying to con Vader. She was just sticking to the cover story until the bitter end.

Of course we really don't need any EU pre-ANH continuity or RO to ascertain this. In ANH itself, Leia's ship was attacked by an Imperial Star Destroyer and Leia didn't attempt to surrender to stop the attack. When the ship was boarded by stormtroopers, they didn't wave the white flag and say "We surrender! We're just on a diplomatic mission!" The had soldiers there to fight back. All to allow the princess to have time to do something with the Death Star plans. Leia couldn't have expected the "diplomatic mission" story to fly because a ship on a diplomatic mission wouldn't have fought back against the Empire. Then she resisted the mind probe and never even admitted to being involved with the Rebels until the Death Star hovered over her home planet and she had to give Tarkin a system. And even in her resignation, she still lied and only gave a former Rebel base. A Rebel through and through, even in the face of surmounting evil. I feel from ANH alone it is "foolish" to think Leia was actually thought she could convince Vader she was on a diplomatic mission.

Bren wrote:
Forgot about that. Then take your pick:

1. The learner-master is a reference to their prior relationship in a fairly straightforward apprentice-knight-master categorization. Everyone except the master is still a learner.

2. Like many real world students Vader refers to the prior student (learner) - teacher (master) relationship he had with Obi-Wan. In the same way that someone in their 40s might refer to an influential high school or college coach as "coach" even though they no longer have that relationship or even if the former student is now himself a coach.

Quite true, but this still doesn't change the fact Vader and Anakin Skywalker were originally two separate characters. Even if it had been a possibility in Lucas' mind, the decision to make Vader really be Anakin was not made until pre-production of TESB. At the time of the original SW release, Darth Vader was the character's name back when he was a Jedi pupil, he never changed his name after turning to evil, Vader really killed Luke's father, and Obi-Wan was simply calling his former apprentice by his first name he always knew him as, not a title.

In light of the film series as a whole, it makes the most sense to me if Anakin had only recently become full-fledged Knight before RotS, like 9-6 months or less before RotS. That's what Lucas originally dictated to publishing for their original Clone Wars program 2002-2005 and that made the most sense with respect to all of the films. In 2008, moving Anakin's promotion to Knight to weeks after AotC and giving him his own padawan was an afterthought to film series that only served the franchise of the day, which is why I have a problem with the very premise of TCW. Yes Bren, view it as a separate universe indeed!

Naaman wrote:
Leia kissing Luke is another indicator that Lucas didnt have the ultimate result in mind at the onset.

Quite right. Leia did not officially become the long-lost sister of Luke until pre-production of RotJ. Yet another example of discontinuities within the classic trilogy itself. TESB retcons the ANH, and RotJ further retcons them both. But I don't feel any of the discontinuities in between any of the live action theatrical films break the series.

Bren wrote:
If Darth is a title it's like referring to Baron Harkonnen as "Baron." Perfectly reasonable.

True. In light of the series as a whole, my explanation for Obi-Wan calling Vader "Darth" on the Death Star was a sarcastic jab at him, criticizing his Sith identity. That works with respect to dialogue between them in RotS.

Bren wrote:
Also where do the sequels make Darth a title?

By showing four Sith Lords with the same "first name". Just like you shouldn't name all your kids "George", Darth only makes sense as a title. But in the films, only Sith Lords refer to each other as Darth. Everyone else calls them "Lord" with a single exception, Obi-Wan to Vader on the original Star Wars movie, and there it is also the only instance of the word being used by itself without the other name.

Anyway, my point in bringing up these examples was just to show that the small subset of films we call the classic trilogy are not without their own discontinuities, such as Vader originally being a separate character from Anakin (and Luke's long-lost sister originally being a completely separate character from Leia).
_________________
*
"Would you trade that necklace for a glimpse into your future? ...What do you know of kyber crystals?"
"The Force moves darkly near a creature that’s about to kill... I'm gonna follow Jyn. Her path is clear."

"Tell that to Kanjiklub."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
It is interesting that you request film evidence for the Darth title, but here you cite the radio drama.
No more "interesting" than your citing what is in a creator's mind or was mentioned in an interview rather than solely what the audience sees on film. Nor is the Radio play central to my comment on the plausibility or lack there of to her story.

Quote:
Anyway, now it is even more foolish to expect Vader to buy the "diplomatic mission" story in light of him just a little while before that conversation he had personally witnessed Leia's ship escape out of the Rebel flagship he was on at the end the Battle of Scarif. Since Leia isn't considered a foolish character, it is reasonable to assume that she wasn't actually trying to con Vader. She was just sticking to the cover story until the bitter end.
Better to stick to a cover story that has at least some shred of plausibility. Like one where she actually was on some planet somewhere performing an ostensible diplomatic or mercy mission immediately or shortly before being stopped.

Quote:
I feel from ANH alone it is "foolish" to think Leia was actually thought she could convince Vader she was on a diplomatic mission.
Did I ever say she thought, foolishly or otherwise, that she would convince him? I don't think I did. But if so I misspoke. But if she is trying to delay, confuse, and obfuscate using a plausible lie is better than an obvious and easily refuted lie, not so?

Quote:
Quite true, but this still doesn't change the fact Vader and Anakin Skywalker were originally two separate characters.
I don't think you are basing this solely on evidence internal to the films ANH, ESB, and ROTJ though. Which was what I was asking for.

Quote:
Bren wrote:
Also where do the sequels make Darth a title?

By showing four Sith Lords with the same "first name".
Where do Darth Sidious, Darth Tyrannous, and Darth Maul appear in ANH or its two sequels ESB and ROTJ? They show up in the prequels, not these two sequels.

Quote:
Anyway, my point in bringing up these examples was just to show that the small subset of films we call the classic trilogy are not without their own discontinuities, such as Vader originally being a separate character from Anakin (and Luke's long-lost sister originally being a completely separate character from Leia).
I am aware that there are discontinuities in the films. Some are troubling some (like the Coke cans or the head bumping storm troopers) not so much. But some of the discontinuities you mention (like Darth as a title instead of a name) are a result of you trying to reconcile other sources that introduce the discontinuities with those first three films (ANH, ESB, ROTJ) though.

I had two points. One point was that I prefer using only the original three films as canon. That's based on my preference which, like liking or disliking a glass of beer, is not subject to logical debate. My other point was that by limiting canon to fewer sources, in this case only those three movies, rather than trying to include other movies, TV shows, books, and interviews with writers and directors I end up with fewer conflicts that need to be managed. I don't think you disagree with this point even though you enjoy trying to rationalize away more conflicts and include more material in what you use.

So are we actually debating anything here? If it helps, I'm happy to concede you have a greater command of the details from the various sources.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 3916
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Whill wrote:
Bren wrote:
Also where do the sequels make Darth a title?

By showing four Sith Lords with the same "first name".

Where do Darth Sidious, Darth Tyrannous, and Darth Maul appear in ANH or its two sequels ESB and ROTJ? They show up in the prequels, not these two sequels.

Oh sorry for the confusion. Technically prequels are sequels. Sequels are any continuation of the story of an original work regardless of when they takes place with respect to the original, and prequels are a specific subset of sequels that takes place before the work. So all prequels are sequels, but not all sequels are prequels. (To my knowledge there is no single word in English for 'chronologically subsequent sequel'.)

Bren wrote:
Whill wrote:
Anyway, my point in bringing up these examples was just to show that the small subset of films we call the classic trilogy are not without their own discontinuities, such as Vader originally being a separate character from Anakin (and Luke's long-lost sister originally being a completely separate character from Leia).

I am aware that there are discontinuities in the films...

So are we actually debating anything here? If it helps, I'm happy to concede you have a greater command of the details from the various sources.

There's no debate or need for concession. I thought we were just having a conversation.
_________________
*
"Would you trade that necklace for a glimpse into your future? ...What do you know of kyber crystals?"
"The Force moves darkly near a creature that’s about to kill... I'm gonna follow Jyn. Her path is clear."

"Tell that to Kanjiklub."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1075
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
(To my knowledge there is no single word in English for 'chronologically subsequent sequel'.)


I don't think so... prequel is a portmaneau of prelude and sequel. Seems to come from 1973, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary.
_________________
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude... seeming to be true within the context of [Star Wars].
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Characters, Droids, and Species All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0