ST The Orphan

Not bad ideas, but really, we've seen female heroes in SW for so long, from Leia, to Padme, any number of Jedi throughout the Clone Wars books, comics, etc., right on through to five years of Ahsoka Tano, while never once have we encountered a female antagonist who is anything more than an underling (Asajj Ventress in TCW is, I think, a well-realized example).

Frankly, thanks to being so burned-out on Tano, I'm ready to leave the currently very popular female hero behind for a hot minute, so there's also a bit of that. But as I alluded to prior, the heroes will be an ensemble - men, women, human, alien, regardless. But the villain, I think, is where it gets much more interesting. "Palpatina" should be our first example of a female villain who is completely in charge. A legitimate, dangerous threat to our new heroes, who answers to no one. Maybe I'm alone on this, but I think that would be far more intriguing.

 

@Chiznuk, are you okay? That post seems so unlike you.

 

No offense meant, of course. The idea just seems to me to be a bit much for the average audience. Not that I have anything better to offer.

 

Who says only men can pass on family names in Star Wars? There are plenty of cultures on Earth (while not incredibly common in America, it does occur) that children take their mother's name. Sometimes even husbands who take their wife's name. It does happen.

Certainly it could happen with a famous name like Skywalker. Even if Luke's daughter tries to change her name, she'll probably always be known as one.

 

I thought it was an interesting post. The key idea is maybe she's a villain for a noble purpose.

Maybe this inherent nobility grows from her contact with Luke or his children (or Leia's!).

 

I've liked the idea of possession for a long time. And how truly evil to try to possess your own daughter?

Damn possessive fathers.

 

So? You do know we have seen even more male leads, right? And aside from Kerra Holt and the Exile and so on there were few females given the position of main lead.

Yarr, maybe. But the reason given in the book was really "the force was angry at us Sith and thus it created the chosen one." That's not really creation by Plagueis if you ask me.

Btw., it is funny how someone who denies the force has a will basically admits it does in this sequence. Sith ... always clinging to the truths that suit them best.

Maybe she is at first a revenge-seeking girl obsessed about her father who later grows into a real adult villain with more independent goals and motivations, a true villain to fear? Her growth could mirror that of the protagonist.

 

Good point on the Force having some kind of will of its own, which basically personifies it. It's a complicated sequence of cause and effect, indeed. We could say both Plagueis and the Force were parents to Anakin.

I suppose the Force has a will since that's what the movies suggest. Are you calling me Sithy, or just talking about the Sith? I do believe people have wills, but not that they are free in the absolute sense of free will. Will is driven by desire, not logic, although there is a complicated interplay between them that creates, imo, ranges of freedom. It's a complex process, which is why I hate that popular entertainment usually demands a simple view of freedom. Even human law admits people are sometimes not culpable for their actions; pop narrative should too (sometimes it does).

I like it. Our thoughts are very similar on her.

Except I may want her somewhat unbalanced at first due to the trauma inflicted by scientific experimentation, if that was part of her upbringing.

 

No, wasn't talking about you. I just find it fascinating how some Sith (Plagueis, Vader even more so) seem to distort the truth into whatever they want to believe, depending on the Situation. Plagueis believes the force doesn't have a will - and then in his eyes it suddenly does, without him noticing it.

As long as she remains threatening, I'm 100% for it.

 

I wonder how much of this is intentional, or just a lapse by the writers?

 

Darth Chiznuk, Dra---, Darth_Pevra: I don't rule out anything, as I don't want to set any expectations that can lead to disappointment, but evil possession seems too much of a trope for Star Wars. Heck, I just saw it in "This is the End."

 

Maybe something to do with the reason the Emperor did this:

 

or maybe she's a shapeshipfter a la Zam and is a Sith pretending to be an orphaned force user to infiltrate Luke's Order

 

Being exploded is usually insta-death. But what do I know?

 

people don't usually explode. But what do I know?

This explosion could be Palpatine "tranfering essence" for all we know

 

Could the Orphan be Leia?

I was watching the callback videos, and re reading the original seven casting call, and I think it fits, especially with Abrams hiistory

 

I don't remember this transferring essence being in the movie, which means it would be a gigantic retcon.

I can only repeat myself that screwing around with main plotpoints and conflicts of the previous trilogies would be a horrific mistake. I can hardly think of anything worse than undoing the climax of the entire six movies saga.

 

The descriptions could be metaphors, and ways to get certain emotions out of the actors, and who says the movie isn't close to Return of the Jedi, Leia could still be young. They wouldn't want the potentials to know they were reading for Leia, and Thomas is probably Luke.

 

Yes, and, in other breaking news, I looked out my window and ascertained that the sky appears blue.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not inclined to get in a big to-do about it, either (particularly days after I made my post). I don't see what is to be accomplished.

Everybody already knows that different cultures dictate different customs. It's not news and I don't require any reminders, thank you. Lot's of things happen. And people can always fall back on "the rules of the GFFA could be different," too - I mean, the next gen heroes could decide to take any conceivable name for any of a litany of reasons, but the films are being created by humans right here on earth, with a human audience in mind. That said, I would generally expect a situation where men keep their surnames, while married females are likely to take the family name of their husbands. Is it a hard and fast rule? No, of course not. But it's not an unfounded, or even unreasonable expectation, either. If someone were to ask, yes, without knowing anything about the story ahead of time, I would expect Leia's children to take the name Solo, and Luke's children to have the name Skywalker, and for their children to generally follow suit, as well.

Why do I say this? Not that everybody didn't already know, but it's because in the culture I was raised (Generic American), the men tend to carry the family name to the grave, where women often change theirs. Family names tend to be passed through the males. This is the tradition I am accustomed to, so this is what informs my expectations. But again, I don't really need to explain any of this, because everybody already knew what I meant, and why, in the full knowledge that it's not the only way things can happen.

The happy news is that, if you find my position disagreeable, you can at least take comfort in the knowledge that I'm not writing the script.

 

I'm not a fan of Palpatine returning in any form, but given how the movie is going to be based on Lucas's outline, I think the EU would indicate Palpatine isn't going to be the villain.

As far as I know, the one piece of that Lucas had any real, meaningful input into was the Zahn trilogy. If Lucas invisioned Palpatine returning I think it would have come up in the one follow to Return of the Jedi that was happening.