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

Why God, Why?
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> General Star Wars -> Why God, Why? Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pel
Captain
Captain


Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 657
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Outstanding points. For that matter, do we really know why Palpatine does what he does? Yes, he's the evil power-hungry Sith Lord, willing to sacrifice millions for his personal aggrandizement, but is there more to the tale? Did he have a vision of the Vong conquering the galaxy and subsequently resolve to resist them? We don't really know in the context of the films and that's what the EU was supposed to help with, but the continuity editors are not always the supreme authority on what's released and what's canon.

I accept that on the surface the Star Wars characters are mostly either good or evil and function as such to further the movie plots. I also agree that a healthy EU expands on those characters and opens up the hood to let us see what's underneath.

Btw, I'm now considering an underground blog devoted to Maul's previously undiscovered love of show tunes and bantha dolls. Laughing
_________________
Aha!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Solo4114
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pel wrote:
Outstanding points. For that matter, do we really know why Palpatine does what he does? Yes, he's the evil power-hungry Sith Lord, willing to sacrifice millions for his personal aggrandizement, but is there more to the tale? Did he have a vision of the Vong conquering the galaxy and subsequently resolve to resist them? We don't really know in the context of the films and that's what the EU was supposed to help with, but the continuity editors are not always the supreme authority on what's released and what's canon.

I accept that on the surface the Star Wars characters are mostly either good or evil and function as such to further the movie plots. I also agree that a healthy EU expands on those characters and opens up the hood to let us see what's underneath.

Btw, I'm now considering an underground blog devoted to Maul's previously undiscovered love of show tunes and bantha dolls. Laughing


I don't think, like, every single action taken needs to have an independent reason. And I think Palpatine's motives could be simply what he said: unlimited power and the subjugation of all to his will. Someone like Palpatine, as a character, isn't necessarily in need of motivation; rather, he's a motivating force. He has a personality, too. He's charismatic, devious, manipulative, etc. I think the writing in the PT makes him a little...hmm...too powerful? Too lucky? Something like that. Like, the level of manipulation that he engages in ends up seeming WAY too coincidental. I'd have also liked to have seen more emphasis on some of the old WEG/EU background material stemming from Palpatine's policies, or from his manipulation of people's existing attitudes to enhance his own power.

But I think Palpatine is also...kinda boring. He wants power. Great. For what? What will he do with his power? It's clear he's ruthless and willing to destroy the lives of billions or more to achieve his ends...but what are his ends? This is where George's big ideas needed some refinement. The Sith want power, and are driven by passion. Ok, great. But power towards what end? Do they want to make the galaxy into a particular vision? Maybe a universe where the strong rule the weak because they see it as the natural order, and they see the Jedi as getting in the way of that? I dunno, and that's because George...never really thought it through that far. He had the surface level idea (the Sith are evil and driven by unchecked passions), but not the deeper grounding for the characters.

I'll give you an example. Consider the Shadows from Babylon 5. They're "evil," right? Except that they aren't JUST evil. They don't destroy everything for funsies. They have an underlying philosophy that, through conflict and struggle, the strong survive and rise, while the weak rightly perish and fade away. Towards that end, they embrace warfare and, to a certain extent, a kind of guided chaos. The Vorlons, on the other hand, are rigid and about creating order, so that species may thrive in peace (although later, they go off the deep end by trying to control too much and destroying people who work with the Shadows or where the taint of the Shadows existed). But again, they aren't just "good" because...uh....they're good. They're "good" because they embrace an ethos of peace and protecting the weak, because they think that's the best way forward.

The Jedi make sense in this regard. They believe in protecting society, using the force for knowledge and defense, etc. But the Sith are kind of ill-defined in the film canon, and simply serve as like a kind of antagonistic force, rather than as having any kind of ideology. There's some hint at an ideology, but honestly, Anakin's picnic conversation about dictatorships and Vader's "bring order out of chaos" appeal to Luke are the clearest expressions of anything like Sith philosophy. For Vader/Anakin, the end goal is order and peace, but the method of attaining it is the ruthless application of brutal, repressive force. THAT makes sense. THAT is at least a little complex.

But Palpatine? He wants power for its own sake, to make himself secure, but not much beyond that. Certainly, people like that exist, but as dramatic characters...they're kinda boring. Which is why you give them some secondary character (like a Vader, a Dooku, even a Maul) to provide context for the overall actions of the badguys. Or at least, that's the opportunity you have. You can create the goals/context of the Sith through the actions of the apprentice, rather than the master.

This is part of why I love certain aspects of TCW, actually -- the Mortis arc is fascinating to me. The exploration of the duality within the Force and the balance point between the two extremes is really, really interesting to me. The notion that the Dark side and the Light side are more like two morally neutral aspects of the same thing, all of which must be kept in balance or the entire system falls apart...that's fascinating to me, and way more interesting than "UNLIMITED POWAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!" I also love the idea that the Jedi view of the Force is not...well...wrong, per se, but is rather an incomplete explanation of something the Jedi don't fully understand. (Which, arguably, contributes to their fall.)


Anyway, I think you can take those kinds of ideas and explore them, but you have to be really clear about what you're trying to do with your story when you do it, and you probably need at least 2.5hrs per film if you're doing a trilogy (maybe more, even). Alternatively, you can keep it kind of pulp-adventure-y, but it still helps to develop your characters at least a little bit, if only to provide the audience with emotional touchstones so that they can connect to the action on screen.

I see the difference there as being between watching, say, Michael Bayformers -- where there's zero emotional connection and it really is just about giant robots punching each other -- on the one hand, and something like Star Wars, where the human interactions, motivations, and characterization provide an emotional grounding for the action, which in turn gives it resonance with the audience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5026
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the PT I think that Lucas did not want to create villains that overshadowed Palpatine and Vader. I feel Maul was perfect for his movie, but agree that Dooku was under utilized. Grievous goes into sequelitis territory a bit, but he did look cool, have some great action scenes, and ultimately died to give Obi-Wan something to do while Palpatine and Vader rose to power. The PT could have been better, but it also could have been a lot worse. AotC was my least fave SW film until TLJ.

A major motivation for Palpatine is revenge. (After all, they did name a movie for this motivation.) But it is a largely impersonal revenge that he inherited from the Sith Order, passed down from master to apprentice for 1000 years. The Sith used to control the Republic and then the Jedi defeated them. Sure the Jedi Order had to be destroyed to take over the Republic again, but Palpatine really enjoyed getting revenge against them, especially delighting in the fact that their downfall was largely from turning the Jedi's Chosen One to the Dark Side and making him a Sith. The revenge was never complete since Yoda and Obi-Wan lived, because total revenge was only achieved by killing every last Jedi. When the Rebels destroyed the Death Star, Palpatine had some fresh revenge motivation against Luke, Leia, and the entire Rebel Alliance.

Snoke's motivation to destroy every last Jedi seems to be Palpatine's revenge motivation taken to a ridiculous extreme. If he hadn't been so obsessed with finding Luke, the Resistance probably wouldn't have found Luke either, and the Jedi would have just died with him. That's why it makes sense to me if Snoke really was Darth Plagueis, which would mean he is the one that passed on the revenge motivation to Palpatine. If Snoke isn't Plagueis, then why would he have this obsession with killing off the Jedi? If Darth Hideous stays dead, I might be ok with never finding out.

Solo4114 wrote:
But when you're limited to three films per series to tell your story (which -- let's note -- is an arbitrary limit. It doesn't have to be trilogies, ya know...), there really isn't enough time to explore all of this.

Well, the PT absolutely had to be a trilogy because ANH was Episode IV. The ST is a trilogy just because it is continuing the story of two trilogies that came before, so we'll have a trilogy of trilogies. Going forward, I do not think there are going to necessarily stick with trilogies. The series in the works from the Game of Thrones guys is a series of an indeterminate # of films.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1343
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kudos to Solo4114 for explaining about Babylon 5 and the motivations of the Vorlons and Shadows. But there's also a bit of Motive decay for both of them that happened in Babylon 5. The entire reason the Shadows and Vorlons got into their conflict on "Order vs Chaos" was because the Shadows and the Vorlons were the "youngest" of the First Ones (races who had arisen in the galaxy millions of years before the contemporary races in the Babylonverse like the humans, Mimbari, Centarui, Narn and the rest) and were charged by the rest of the First Ones to stay behind and guide the development of the younger races. The problem arose because the Vorlons and Shadows had two entirely opposed philosophies on how to help the younger races "grow up" and fell into a cold war against each other by using the younger races as proxies. It was even lampshaded in the show how the Vorlons and Shadows essentially became a feuding pair of parents that used their kids to get back at each other instead of doing what was right for their kids. Not to mention the deeper meaning of the Vorlon Question ("Who are you?") and the Shadow Question ("What do you want?"): The Vorlons knew who they were, but didn't know what they wanted, and the Shadows knew what they wanted but didn't know who they were. The entire reason the cold war between the Vorlons and Shadows even happened was because both races had lost their way. Instead of staying "on mission" to help the younger races, both races became obsessed with proving the other race's philosophy on how to help the younger races wrong. Both races each tried to make the younger races pick a side for millennia, until finally Sheridan and the rest of the younger races have had enough and tell both the Vorlons and the Shadows to take an extragalactic hike.

Yeah, this is what an explored villain's motive looks like, Solo4114 is right that, compared to all that, Palpy does seem kinda flat.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11591
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are some interesting parallels between Jedi/Sith and Vorlons/Shadows. The Shadow doctrine of growth through conflict has a lot in common with the Sith's brutally Darwinian method of advancement. Even under the Rule of Two, the Apprentice could only truly become the Master through conflict (killing his putative superior). Palpatine's quest for power could be interpreted as the ultimate expression of such a doctrine; he who rises to the top and stays there for as long as possible is "the fittest." What if the acquisition of power was ultimately a result of him imbibing and expressing the true core belief of Sith doctrine. Look at the Sith Code:
    Peace is a lie. There is only Passion.
    Through Passion I gain Strength.
    Through Strength I gain Power.
    Through Power I gain Victory.
    Through Victory my chains are Broken.
    The Force shall free me.

Imagine a worldview shaped by this credo. If Palpatine was a true believer of this, his actions make perfect sense.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
For the PT I think that Lucas did not want to create villains that overshadowed Palpatine and Vader. I feel Maul was perfect for his movie, but agree that Dooku was under utilized. Grievous goes into sequelitis territory a bit, but he did look cool, have some great action scenes, and ultimately died to give Obi-Wan something to do while Palpatine and Vader rose to power. The PT could have been better, but it also could have been a lot worse. AotC was my least fave SW film until TLJ.


Sure, the PT could've been worse. It also could've been WAY better. There are some really cool ideas in the bullet points, but it's actual execution is (in my opinion) fairly weak. The frustrating part for me is that the underlying notions are really, really interesting. It's just that the stuff Lucas chose to focus on kinda falls flat for me, and I'm left saying "But why didn't you talk about any of THIS stuff? And what about THAT? Why are we focused on THIS instead?"

Quote:
A major motivation for Palpatine is revenge. (After all, they did name a movie for this motivation.) But it is a largely impersonal revenge that he inherited from the Sith Order, passed down from master to apprentice for 1000 years. The Sith used to control the Republic and then the Jedi defeated them. Sure the Jedi Order had to be destroyed to take over the Republic again, but Palpatine really enjoyed getting revenge against them, especially delighting in the fact that their downfall was largely from turning the Jedi's Chosen One to the Dark Side and making him a Sith. The revenge was never complete since Yoda and Obi-Wan lived, because total revenge was only achieved by killing every last Jedi. When the Rebels destroyed the Death Star, Palpatine had some fresh revenge motivation against Luke, Leia, and the entire Rebel Alliance.


Maybe, but...a lot of that isn't really addressed in the films. I mean the desire for revenge, the 1000 years of Jedi rule after Sith rule, Palpatine's own desire for vengeance, etc. Much of it is, at best, implied, and some of it just doesn't appear at all within the film (although it does in the auxiliary material, I gather). To me, that's something that's missing from the PT. It may be an artifact of the OT, actually. In the OT, Palpatine and the Empire are just...there. They're evil. They took over, they run the show, and they're bad. We don't need to know their real motivations or attitudes because their whole approach is supposed to be oppression and control. But when you're doing the story of how they got into power, now you need to figure out "Wait, why'd they do all of this?" I get the sense that Lucas...didn't really bother with that. Or at least he didn't bother to explain it in the films. And that's a big part of why Palpy comes across as not really having a clear motivation other than "Duh. I want power." Why? What's he want to do with it? What are his goals in having power and why are those his goals? It doesn't matter (to Lucas, I think) because the point is simply to bring us current with the OT (more or less). It's "how" we got here, not "why" we got here.

Quote:
Snoke's motivation to destroy every last Jedi seems to be Palpatine's revenge motivation taken to a ridiculous extreme. If he hadn't been so obsessed with finding Luke, the Resistance probably wouldn't have found Luke either, and the Jedi would have just died with him. That's why it makes sense to me if Snoke really was Darth Plagueis, which would mean he is the one that passed on the revenge motivation to Palpatine. If Snoke isn't Plagueis, then why would he have this obsession with killing off the Jedi? If Darth Hideous stays dead, I might be ok with never finding out.


So, initially, I wasn't planning on getting into the ST much. But you raise a good point. I loved TLJ, and I "enjoy" TFA. But I have a LOT of problems with TFA (more than I do with TLJ, in fact), because of JJ's approach to storytelling. I actually think he's kind of a lousy storyteller. He's more adept at it than Lucas is on his own (although Lucas with a good crew around him is WAY better), and he's slicker than Lucas in his execution, but I think he's a weak storyteller. Much of his storytelling relies on manipulating audience interest in meta-story aspects.

Snoke is a good example. JJ introduced Snoke as the "emperor-like" figure in the new trilogy, but...provided ZERO background on him. Who is he? Where'd he come from? What's he want? Nobody knows and JJ ain't tellin', and now Snoke's become Eric-the-Half-a-Snoke, so it doesn't seem like we'll find out. JJ did all of this (and a bunch of other stuff in TFA) to gin up interest in the "mystery" behind the story. Except that that's not actual interest in the story. It's interest in the meta-story. The story-beyond-the-story. The story itself is (arguably) Rey's journey, and Snoke's background, his motivations, etc. are completely irrelevant to that. Where they become relevant is in world-building and in providing emotional anchors for your audience to create context to characters' actions and have them matter. It fleshes out your characters and they seem less like, well, stock characters or walking tropes, which is exactly what Snoke is. I think Rian Johnson knew this, knew that JJ would never really deliver on this background info, and so dispatched with Snoke in a tidy fashion.

But it would have really helped in telling the story of TFA if we knew a lot of that info or had it divulged through exposition at various points.

Quote:
Solo4114 wrote:
But when you're limited to three films per series to tell your story (which -- let's note -- is an arbitrary limit. It doesn't have to be trilogies, ya know...), there really isn't enough time to explore all of this.


Well, the PT absolutely had to be a trilogy because ANH was Episode IV. The ST is a trilogy just because it is continuing the story of two trilogies that came before, so we'll have a trilogy of trilogies. Going forward, I do not think there are going to necessarily stick with trilogies. The series in the works from the Game of Thrones guys is a series of an indeterminate # of films.


Right, I mean, obviously you have to make episodes I-III prior to IV. The thing is, the OT was a trilogy primarily because Lucas was exhausted and just wanted to be done with the whole thing and move on. But from a narrative perspective, there's no reason one needs to structure their story as a three-part tale. You could use traditional dramatic structure, if you want, or something else altogether.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Solo4114
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:
Kudos to Solo4114 for explaining about Babylon 5 and the motivations of the Vorlons and Shadows. But there's also a bit of Motive decay for both of them that happened in Babylon 5. The entire reason the Shadows and Vorlons got into their conflict on "Order vs Chaos" was because the Shadows and the Vorlons were the "youngest" of the First Ones (races who had arisen in the galaxy millions of years before the contemporary races in the Babylonverse like the humans, Mimbari, Centarui, Narn and the rest) and were charged by the rest of the First Ones to stay behind and guide the development of the younger races. The problem arose because the Vorlons and Shadows had two entirely opposed philosophies on how to help the younger races "grow up" and fell into a cold war against each other by using the younger races as proxies. It was even lampshaded in the show how the Vorlons and Shadows essentially became a feuding pair of parents that used their kids to get back at each other instead of doing what was right for their kids. Not to mention the deeper meaning of the Vorlon Question ("Who are you?") and the Shadow Question ("What do you want?"): The Vorlons knew who they were, but didn't know what they wanted, and the Shadows knew what they wanted but didn't know who they were. The entire reason the cold war between the Vorlons and Shadows even happened was because both races had lost their way. Instead of staying "on mission" to help the younger races, both races became obsessed with proving the other race's philosophy on how to help the younger races wrong. Both races each tried to make the younger races pick a side for millennia, until finally Sheridan and the rest of the younger races have had enough and tell both the Vorlons and the Shadows to take an extragalactic hike.

Yeah, this is what an explored villain's motive looks like, Solo4114 is right that, compared to all that, Palpy does seem kinda flat.


That's also exactly why I so love the conflict. It starts off seeming like a clear-cut good vs. evil battle, until the Vorlons and the Shadows just lose their s*** and you get the sense that NOBODY is really good, and instead they are just different approaches using the lesser races as proxies for their ideological spat. (And I love, love, love the whole "Get the hell out of our galaxy!!" line.)

But that gets at the context of their actions. Even if you make one side clearly evil and one side clearly good, you're still providing motivation and context for their actions.

That's different from the kind of "Saturday morning cartoon" villain motivation of doing something because it's just de facto evil. That's all I'm saying, really.

CRMcNeill wrote:
There are some interesting parallels between Jedi/Sith and Vorlons/Shadows. The Shadow doctrine of growth through conflict has a lot in common with the Sith's brutally Darwinian method of advancement. Even under the Rule of Two, the Apprentice could only truly become the Master through conflict (killing his putative superior). Palpatine's quest for power could be interpreted as the ultimate expression of such a doctrine; he who rises to the top and stays there for as long as possible is "the fittest." What if the acquisition of power was ultimately a result of him imbibing and expressing the true core belief of Sith doctrine. Look at the Sith Code:
    Peace is a lie. There is only Passion.
    Through Passion I gain Strength.
    Through Strength I gain Power.
    Through Power I gain Victory.
    Through Victory my chains are Broken.
    The Force shall free me.

Imagine a worldview shaped by this credo. If Palpatine was a true believer of this, his actions make perfect sense.


See, that would also be a good philosophy to have as the backdrop to the Sith. Palpatine's actions make sense in such a context. Obviously, he's still evil, but at least his actions seem to stem from something other than just "POWAAAAAAAAH." You could even view a twisted version of this as being akin to Leto II's rule as God Emperor in the Dune novels, by forcing humanity to evolve so that it could ultimately fight the threat it would face in the far off future, because it would be strong enough to ultimately defeat Leto and live on its own terms instead of looking to godhead for the path forward.

But the films themselves don't touch on any of this, and I think the PT would've been a lot stronger if it had.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pel
Captain
Captain


Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 657
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct, which I think is where the EU should step in and flesh out these characters, their backstories, and motivations to provide a rich and robust universe. We got that for a while, but not really anymore.

Mad respect for the B5 references and explanation, and the fact that nearly everyone evolved on that show really made it interesting and succesful. Palpatine never evolved. He was just the world boss at the end of the game. As far as Snoke, who was that guy? Does anyone know? Is the First Order anything more than Empire 2.1?
_________________
Aha!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11591
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
See, that would also be a good philosophy to have as the backdrop to the Sith. Palpatine's actions make sense in such a context. Obviously, he's still evil, but at least his actions seem to stem from something other than just "POWAAAAAAAAH." You could even view a twisted version of this as being akin to Leto II's rule as God Emperor in the Dune novels, by forcing humanity to evolve so that it could ultimately fight the threat it would face in the far off future, because it would be strong enough to ultimately defeat Leto and live on its own terms instead of looking to godhead for the path forward.

But the films themselves don't touch on any of this, and I think the PT would've been a lot stronger if it had.

True, and yet "POWAAAAAAAAH" is the final step up on the Sith Code. Unlimited Power = Unlimited Victory = Unlimited Freedom (chains broken). In that moment, he achieved the zenith of Sith teachings.

Granted, it is tacking that philosophy on to the films extra-canonically (no mention of it made in the films), but the point is still there.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Solo4114 wrote:
See, that would also be a good philosophy to have as the backdrop to the Sith. Palpatine's actions make sense in such a context. Obviously, he's still evil, but at least his actions seem to stem from something other than just "POWAAAAAAAAH." You could even view a twisted version of this as being akin to Leto II's rule as God Emperor in the Dune novels, by forcing humanity to evolve so that it could ultimately fight the threat it would face in the far off future, because it would be strong enough to ultimately defeat Leto and live on its own terms instead of looking to godhead for the path forward.

But the films themselves don't touch on any of this, and I think the PT would've been a lot stronger if it had.

True, and yet "POWAAAAAAAAH" is the final step up on the Sith Code. Unlimited Power = Unlimited Victory = Unlimited Freedom (chains broken). In that moment, he achieved the zenith of Sith teachings.

Granted, it is tacking that philosophy on to the films extra-canonically (no mention of it made in the films), but the point is still there.


Exactly my point. Even there, "power" isn't an end unto itself. It's a means to an end, that end being freedom. In other words, one cannot be completely free, unless one is completely powerful sufficient to use that power to exercise one's will without limit.

Although I suppose actually attaining such power might make one suffer from a kind of existential crisis, too. Like, you have the ability to impose your will however you see fit, but...you don't know what you want to do or why, really.

Actually, that gets me thinking about the Shadow/Vorlon split (Who are you, what do you want), and wanting to reject the dichotomous nature of the questions in the first place. To answer either, you must answer both. Who you are is partially influenced by what you want, and what you want is partially influenced by who you are.





....I think I've gone a bit far afield here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11591
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Or you've discovered the core principle of balance...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11591
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are interesting parallels between the Jedi Code and the Vorlon stance, as well. Much of the Code encompasses both self-knowledge (and self-control by extension), as well as recognizing one's place within the larger universe.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5026
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114, you would probably enjoy my favorite EU author's book, Darth Plagueis. Despite the title, the central character is Palpatine. His narrative starts when he is a 17-year-old noble on Naboo. The story goes all the way up into events occurring during TPM but not seen in the film. It does a lot of what Lucas didn't do with his films. It supports the films. And it even gets you to almost root for Palpatine without being cheesy like Zahn's overt attempt to make Thrawn into a big hero in the horrible novel Outbound Flight.

I disagree that Rian Johnson killed off Snoke because of a prediction that JJ Abrams wouldn't follow through on Snoke's background. This sequel trilogy had no overarching story plan whatsoever. Abrams was hired to do the first film. He created some mystery and walked away to let others deal with it. Rian Johnson was hired for the middle movie and began working on while the first one was in production. The two filmmakers met and shared their ideas, but neither party was beholden to the other for anything else. Abrams reported that Johnson asked him to change a few things in TFA and Abrams did most of them but denied a few because it felt wrong for his movie. Johnson moved Ren's scar, and had Luke take off his Jedi robes after the initial scene he had them on, revealing that he rejected the Jedi (which questions why he was wearing them in the first place - must be because Abrams wanted him to be).

Kathleen Kennedy said that each director had the freedom to make his own vision. Rian Johnson had almost completely free reign. I think it was obvious that he could not kill Rey or Ren. He also couldn't kill Leia because she was the trinity character that was supposed to be in focus for the final movie. It seems obvious to me that he killed Snoke just because he could kill Snoke (and Snoke is a horrible character). He killed Phasma because he could. He killed Ackbar because he could. Rey's background revelations and her vision may have actually been towards JJ's concept because Johnson didn't conclude anything there - But even with that, it was in the film because Rian allowed it to be in the film. Abrams is only back in it for the third film because they fired the original director and begged him to come back. I don't Rian did him any favors in TLJ except maybe for Rey. We'll see next year.

I've never seen Babylon 5 so can't contribute to that conversation. I heard that maybe Star Trek DS9 copied off Babylon 5 and there may have been a lawsuit, possibly settled out of court. That's literally all I know about B5. And before anyone tells me I need to see it, I appreciate the suggestion but I don't need to add another franchise right now! Sorry. I work full time and have a personal life - I just don't have the time.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1343
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Concerning Whill's post above about his reply to Solo4114, I'll try to give my own thoughts on that subject later. What I want to respond/reply to at the moment is the following:

Whill wrote:
I've never seen Babylon 5 so can't contribute to that conversation. I heard that maybe Star Trek DS9 copied off Babylon 5 and there may have been a lawsuit, possibly settled out of court. That's literally all I know about B5. And before anyone tells me I need to see it, I appreciate the suggestion but I don't need to add another franchise right now! Sorry. I work full time and have a personal life - I just don't have the time.


Damn, well, so much for me telling you to go get the B5 DVDs then. Laughing

DS9 and B5 both aired at literally the same day and time of the week, which is exactly why they were Dueling Shows. Hell, while I liked the idea of both shows, even I had to make a choice between the two, and since I was already a Trekker, I chose DS9. But years later, I finally got around to getting the B5 DVDs and was blown away by how awesome this show was.

I never heard anything about an actual lawsuit involving a plagarism dispute between Paramount and the creators of B5. While J. Michael Straczinski, the creator of B5, did make a pitch to Paramount to start the show and did suspect Paramount of plagarising his idea of B5 to make DS9, there's no evidence that the creators of DS9 ever even learned of JMS's pitch to Paramount. If that was the case, then a plagarism lawsuit wouldn't have been successful. I don't think a lawsuit ever happened, despite whatever rumors of one. *shrug*

In any case, the two shows had a friendly rivalry between their actors and writers. Hell, just look up the story about Commander Ivanova's line where she flat out says "This isn't some deep space franchise, this station is about something!" The writers of both shows got a good laugh over that line.

DS9 and B5 even had several actors involved in episodes of both shows, the most noteworthy of whom were Majel Barrett (who played Nurse Chapel and Laxwana Troi in Star Trek) and especially Walter Koenig, who played Chekov in Star Trek but played recurring Magnificent Bastard Psi Cop Alfred Bester in B5. Hell, one of the biggest reasons Koenig played Bester was because he was so different from Chekov! Not to mention that Koenig had alot of fun playing Bester because he was such an interesting villain.

But the rivalry between the two fandoms continues to the day. And as I'm a fan of both shows, I feel like I'm caught in the middle. Goddammit, it's like being put between the Shadows and the Vorlons all over again! Rolling Eyes Shocked

*Sebastian's voiceover* "Nothing changes...." Razz Cool
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pel
Captain
Captain


Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 657
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:

*Sebastian's voiceover* "Nothing changes...." Razz Cool


For the win. Wink
_________________
Aha!
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 -> General Star Wars All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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