ST New Canon Material (novels, TV shows, comics, games) and TFA

How do we know that Sidious didn't sense anything? Sidious isn't one to make an announcement every time he senses something. In fact, Sidious could be the one who gave Maul medical attention. Sidious could have then put Maul on Lotho Minor, knowing that Maul would one day reclaim Mandalore for the Sith.

 

That's some impressive retconning. Maybe after he sorted out Maul on Naboo he dropped by Tatooine & arranged for Shmi to be sold to the Lars & then had a chat to some sandpeople. Then there was a stopover on Kamino on his way home

Actually though if we do assume that Maul's return is ****n then your Sideous theory is the only plausible explanation I've heard for his survival. I haven't seen the later TCW episodes though. I thought I'd heard that Maul has a grudge against Sideous. No spoilers pls.

 

Allow me to reply.

Sidious ****** Maul and ********* him.
Maul drops to his ***** and calls him ******.
Sidious calls Maul and his ******* ******.
Sidious ***** ****** and ******** Maul.

And that's all we know so far.

 

Be careful about playing the "canon" card.

EDIT: This goes for everyone, not just Darth_Downunder. You can discuss these things without resorting to claiming to be right because of canon.

 

I do think the last 2 Yoda episodes tie off this particular lose knot in Star Wars history ever since every hardcore Star Wars geek at one point finds out that it was originally subtitled "from the Journal of the Whills". Do I think the ST will revist them, or would it be the same style, or would it confirm that those were the Whills in the Yoda eps? Not really. However, I do remember watching those episodes thinking about Lucas' description of calling the ST "more metaphysical in nature" and those eps sure as shooting were metaphysical in nature. So I'm leaning towards A) yes, those were the Whills. B) we ain't gonna see them again (which is fine). Subset to that is, if we DO see/confirm the Whills again in the ST, they would probably be different from what we saw in TCW but, c'mon, they're freakin' space ghosts who live in metaphysical magic land. It would look a tad different.

I am, however, leaning more towards Moriband and Sith spirit / illusions popping up again, and I do think that whole bit of business was some direct ST foreshadowing. Why? Because the freakin' Sith are dead (probably). We need a bad guy to go on a journey, right? To get his evil-ness on? So I do expect Moriband to show up and I get the feeling it will hem very close to the description / style it is in the EU/TCW eps.

 

Do you have a quote of Lucas saying "Metaphysical"? I'm not doubting that he did, but I just want to make sure you aren't misquoting his statement about them being more ethereal, which is quite a different thing to say, as I'm convinced he was referring to the idea for the story being out there in the ether somewhere than the content of the story actually being ethereal in nature.

 

There's the ethereal quote ("The other one — what happens to Luke afterward — is much more ethereal. I have a tiny notebook full of notes on that. ") which can honestly be looked at either way, as is with all of us trying to understand the words of The Lucas. And I mentally goofed and cobbled this one together "the third deals with moral and philosophical problems" into "metaphysical" . Hey, "moral" and "philosophical" do add up to "metaphysical", kinda!

 

I think a lot of us (including me!) have conflated these ideas in the past into the idea of the ST being extra metaphysical, but as you rightly point out, Lucas is probably, in the quote, simply referring to his lack of concrete ideas at the time for an ST. Hence, his reference to the "small notebook," which you have highlighted.

I would love a more metaphysical ST, but I think we'll be likely to see something similar to the OT.

 

THIS is exactly why I pushed for the Lucas quotation thread in the first place. Even slight little differences in interpretation of a quote can lead to massively different expectations. And for a while we were fighting our battles on the back of what we THINK we REMEMBER him saying, not what he ACTUALLY said. But now we're all dutifully at least CHECKING those quotes before things go too far, and that alone has to help squash a lot of friction.

And by the way, Dra---, I too would LOVE a more philosophical and metaphysical ST, but I too have no illusions that I'll HAVE one. Probably the best we'll get is moments on the level of some of the training scenes in TESB - which, for a major action-adventure feature film, is probably good enough. Star Wars is indeed highly strengthened by its willingness to go into philosophy and metaphysics, but it can't be just that when we all know it ISN'T just that. Even I know that, and I'm on record as being a huge fan of the whole philosophy angle. At the end of the day, it still has to be about characters DOING things, and not THINKING about things. That's a notion that goes all the way back to THX-1138: theory is worthless if it doesn't lead to action.

If I want a story specifically built AROUND metaphysical ideas, I'm afraid that the TCW Yoda arc is going to have to suffice, but the good thing is that it actually DOES suffice for me. I may not be getting enough philosophy or metaphysics for my taste in general, but I was satisfied and grateful to have any at all - particularly when we consider that the entire arc is essentially a greatly expanded version of what was originally going to be just about two minutes of exposition at the end of ROTS, had the scene not been cut. Two boring minutes expanded to about an hour of really interesting programming: why NOT feel content with that?

 

100% agree - I was starting to think I was the only one who thought this. And FWIW, I am content with that.

 

I think the Yoda arc is different from the RotS cut scene for several reasons:

1.) cut scene says a shaman - meaning 1 person
2.) Yoda arc shows 5 priestesses - meaning more than 1
3.) if they were the same, why not call them shamans instead of priestesses in the Yoda arc
4.) if Yoda saw the priestesses before RotS, why would Jinn explain it again and call them a shaman

I think this is one of the cases where GL kept the concept but changed the details.

 

Perhaps QGJ was Yoda's "Shaman of the Whills" and someone else was QGJ's intermediary between the physical and ethereal, where the priestesses (or Whills) exist

sha·man

[shah-muhn, shey-, sham-uhn] Show IPA
noun
(especially among certain tribal peoples) a person who acts as intermediary between the natural andsupernatural worlds, using magic to cure illness, foretell the future, control spiritual forces, etc.

 

I wonder if the Nightbrothers will appear in the ST. Lucas and/or Disney might want to cash in on their resemblence to Maul.

 

Hmmmm, these guys could be a good template for the "Force Barbarians" that The Hellhammer likes to talk about, but I suspect they are too small in number to be any real great threat. Of course, wielding vibroblades and other Nightbrother weapons, as well as in service to a new Dark Lord, could make them a powerful group of guards and elite soldiers as opposed to the bulk of the villain's actual forces. Although in all due seriousness, having Nightbrothers in the ST will really look like they are trying to cash in on Darth Maul, and I'm not sure what to think of that.

Regardless of how neat I think this could be, I highly doubt they'll include the Nightbrothers, unless somehow Dathomir witches/Nightsisters figure into the plot in some way.

 

I guess the question now is,What happened to Maul now? Sidious spared him in TCW. Does he Die from Dysentery or Erupting Kidneys. What? I'm sure he must have to go...Soon!

 

He'll go in his feature film fight against Darth Vader.

 

About my Nightbrother idea, what if we, for example, see a Nightbrother having a drink in a cantina? Nightbrothers could be treated just like any other species that appears in the movies.

 

First, that defeats the purpose of even HAVING a Nightbrother in the film, because then you're not using that kind of character to his/her fullest potential. One CAN'T just treat a Nightbrother character like any other species that appears in the movies, because Darth Maul has a reputation that precedes him into the theater. If people see a character with Nightbrother tattoos all over him/her, the audience will expect (rightly) that said character will be in an action sequence (which, as we all know, can indeed happen in bars in this film's universe). If the character isn't doing that, he/she's being wasted and there's no point in having one. In such an event, you'd be better off if it WAS just any other species that appears in the movies. A character as distinctive as a Nightbrother needs to be used fully and properly, or not at all.

Second, no one should want to see a Nightbrother character in the ST so badly that they'll settle for one just sitting in a bar having a drink - or, for that matter, one performing ANY mundane activity. That's just the fallback position of someone who WANTS to see a Nightbrother in the film just because he or she likes them, never mind what effect it may have on the story. But "I just want to see one" should NEVER be held up as the reason to include one; it's just not good enough.

And speaking of the effect on the story: Third, unless said character is going to be important to the story, he/she risks being a distraction, a way to make people in the audience say "Ooh, look, it's a Nightbrother!" That's assuming that a general audience even knows what a Nightbrother is without having to have it explained to them; they'd more likely confuse the character with Darth Maul himself, and wonder what the heck he's even doing there. In that event, the audience is already taken out of the movie. That should NEVER happen in a Star Wars movie; a moment's distraction can screw up everything about the experience.

Fourth, Disney/LFL may not even WANT to cash in on the Darth Maul resemblance because they're trying to reestablish the franchise in a different time period. They've been clearly de-emphasizing the prequel era for some time now; why would they suddenly do an about-face and embrace the period when that runs counter to their consistent behavior thus far? This is the ST, not the PT, with its own concerns that have nothing to do with the PT. In any case, shouldn't we expect that the Nightsisters and Nightbrothers, as an open plot point, will be pretty much wrapped up in the Son of Dathomir comic arc? To expect otherwise is to cling on to the PT era when it seems to be a foregone conclusion that said era, for better or worse, is being put on the shelf for the time being.

Which brings me to my last point: it's just not original. A place taken by a Nightbrother could just as easily be taken by a new character that is distinctive and interesting in his/her own right - as Maul was once. To cling to Nightbrothers when there are other, better options out there is, again, clinging to the past. We're not doing that anymore.

 

I think yes. I think Yoda has become the Face of the Franchise, so to speak. I think we will see Yoda in every film in the Sequel Trilogy. I think it makes good business sense for Disney, but also narrative sense as well. I definitely think the Clone Wars arc was setting up for that. I would not be surprised to see Yoda show up in Rebels at some point.

 

such speciesism. According to your logic, all characters should be human.

Also, cancelling TCW != anti-prequel agenda.

 

According to my logic, all characters should be used properly; you only use a character like a Nightbrother if you're prepared to give him something significant to do in the story, because that's what a character like that deserves and that's what an audience would rightfully expect from that kind of character. To just have him having a drink - solely for the sake of seeing one in the film (which appears to be your sole motivation for wanting to include one) - would be a disservice both to him and to the audience. I don't consider that speciesism in the slightest; I consider it respect for the character. I honor the Nightbrothers too much to misuse them by underusing them.

I don't know what that even means.

 

True.

That said, in Darth Maul: The Sith Hunters - he does seem somewhat shocked when the Jedi Council report Maul's survival.

 

How do we know that any of that shock is genuine?

 

Darth Chiznuk Immortiss StoneRiver Darth_Pevra and any others that may be interested...

I noticed there has been a lot of debate in the Baddie thread regarding the apparent non-existence of Sith spirits based on one's interpretation of the Yoda arc. However, I have found evidence on a repeat viewing that this is actually not the case. In fact, the Sith specters that arise from the sands of Moraband Korriban tell Yoda that "[The present-day Sith ] will know you are here. We will tell them." And then, literally the next scene shows Dooku meditating on this, and it can be inferred that the spirits already contacted Sidious, which is why he ordered Dooku to Coruscant. How I interpret this scene is that the Sith specters actually do exist, but are still largely "illusory" because they hold no real power in the material world other than that which is psychological; that is, fear is the only weapon they possess. When Yoda defies these spirits as well as the spirit of Darth Bane, they return to their source. They are unable to influence the physical world in the same way that Jedi Force Ghosts can. Qui-Gon's actions in Voices only serve to emphasize this.

But the Priestess claim that all of what Yoda faced in Moraband up to the altar scene, including the Sith ghosts and Darth Bane, as part of Yoda's tests. That's true, but only insofar as they are trials that the Priestesses have some expectation of and perhaps even a little control over, since they are aware of Moraband's role as a dark side nexus that allows such spirits anchored to this world to exist. But as I emphasized before, these spirits lack the same power that the present-day Sith, like Sidious with his Sith sorcery, possess...as such Sidious' sorcery to create a dark illusion was something that the Priestesses couldn't have anticipated compared to what Yoda had faced previously. In fact, this may be further evidence that they did not create the illusion of the Sith spirits, since I don't think they were initially anticipating that the present-day Sith Lords will be contacted and attempt to intervene.

I have mentioned this before, but in the EU Sith spirits are also shown to be unable to physically affect the material world, and only hold power that is completely psychological. Those who reject these spirits, they have no power over, like Yoda. The final episode in the arc, Sacrifice, does not contradict this point. So really, Sith spirits can in fact still exist, but they are bound to the location where they were presumably buried, unable or unwilling to let go of life and become one with the Force. Theirs is an existence most tortured and despicable, as though they have willingly trapped themselves in their own living hell so as to stave off oblivion. What this means for the ST is that it could well be possible for a tormented Sith spirit to exist, under certain circumstances, like in a world or location exceptionally strong in the dark side of the Force.

 

Plothole.

Yoda tells Bane that he doesn't exist and Bane vanishes. The priestesses then say they created everything. It's also reinforced by the "Sith don't know life after death" line.

That the Sith were still able to detect Yoda is just one typical TCW plothole.