Lit Legacy & TOR vs. the movies

I've provided a very thorough explanation as to how the efforts of Anakin, Sidious, and Luke have been cheapened by Legacy. An explanation, it must be said, you have not even attempted to refute other than by saying you disagree.

I invite you to do so at your leisure. Please explain how the actions by these three particular characters are in no way undermined or devalued by Legacy. And then please show me wherein Legacy went out of its way to respect the original story despite dealing with similar plot elements.

 

What's with the tone Sable? We were having a perfectly civil exchange until now.

EDIT: Robi has pretty much done exactly what you ask and I've seen how you've responded to those posts, it doesn't exactly encourage me to do so. What'd be the point?

 

It's important to remember that we are communicating through naked text, which lacks various cues like intonation and pitch with which to discern intent. I find it's best not to assume anything in this situation.

I'm typing on my IPhone, hence the lack of my usual Garamound font and bold font and italics. I'm being very direct so as to minimize time and effort. (Also explains the lack of emoticons.)

So I assure you I'm not being hostile.

On the other hand, you have been doggedly disagreeing with me. I have taken the time to thoroughly address your points and it was you, not I, who introduced the concept of "proof" and "charge." Not to mention that you have been reading hostility in my words with respect to Ostrander and Duursema though there was none.

With respect to Robimus, I can only say again that there was no hostility. But I am firm in my convictions and thorough in my responses.

If you don't want to address my questions, that's your right. But it would be polite, given your expectations of me.

 

Except what do you think I've been doing Sable?

And yeah, this is the problem with text debates, too easy for things to get misread no matter how careful we are. That's likely for instance as to why I read part of your post as being unfairly hostile to Ostrander and Duursema.

If we take it as a given you and I aren't going to agree on this though, then what remains as the point for this? What's the mutual benefit?

I'm not sure what it is for you, but for me the idea is to see at least how you get from A to B and that's what's frustrating. I can't see the route you're taking, maybe that's the conclusion - our thought patterns are mutually incomprehensible!

If that's so then yes, we ought to call it a day. To continue would be digging when we're already in a hole and I'd like to think we're both smart enough to see that.

In my experience discussions only really end up getting nasty when the participants are trying to change the others' mind, so I have no interest in that.

I'm suspecting we may well have taken this as far as it can go and to continue we might just end up hacking each other off?

 

You've disagreed with me, completely and tenaciously, but you haven't actually addressed the questions I now pose to you.

That's why we simply need to exercise further caution. If you suspect I'm being hostile, you're free to ask me if I am. But we mustn't assume.

I don't take it as a given that we're not going to agree on this. I said I'm firm in my beliefs, not intractable. I can't speak for you, but I'm willing to be convinced that my interpretation is flawed... if you can demonstrate as such. You are unsatisfied with my opinion and its defense. I am now inviting you to show me, as I have attempted to show you with mine, where Legacy supports your case. Show me where and how the reemergence of the Galactic Empire does not undermine the Battle of Endor and the remainder of the war. Show me where and how the resuscitation of the Sith does not cheapen Anakin Skywalker's actions. Show me where and how Krayt's coup does not mitigate the millennium-spanning Grand Plan and Palpatine's intricate, unprecedented rise to power. Show me where and how the routing of the Jedi order a century after Yavin does not compromise Luke's painstaking revivification of it.

I can't very well agree until such has been demonstrated. I have provided an exhaustive defense of my opinion that you ultimately reject; I invite you to do the same for my erudition. Maybe there's something I neglected or refused to see.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm not hacked off; nor was I at all during this discussion. I enjoy these debates and exchanges of opinion. And I'm certainly willing to agree to disagree once we've exchanged our opinions and arguments and if we still are unconvinced. But that hasn't happened. All that's happened is me presenting mine and you remaining unconvinced. In a nutshell, all you've really said is "No, Sable," not "No, Sable, here's why..."

I think that a restored Galactic Empire belittles the import of the original Galactic Empire and its subsequent defeat; if it doesn't, explain to me. I think that having another Sith Galactic Emperor belittles the import of the original Sith Galactic Emperor and his subsequent defeat; if it doesn't, explain to me. I think that the routing of the Jedi order belittles the efforts Luke underwent to restore it; if it doesn't, explain it to me.

You have disagreed; you have not explained.

I have long respected you as a poster and am very interested in what you have to say. You were the one who seemed interested in an objective discussion of Legacy's merits. (Again, you used the words "proof" and "charge," not I.) Given your apparent expectations of me that I feel have been satisfied (even if the argument itself you find unpersuasive), I think it would be both polite and reasonable for you to expound on your opinion in the same manner.

I'm not sure how any clearer I can be. I'm not mad, I hope you're not, I've rigorously defended my opinion per your requests and questions, you have not yours despite mine, and I'd very much like you to do so because I respect your thoughts even if I don't agree with them.

Either way, it's your call.

 

I'd believe that if Vader having an ounce of foresight was not utterly against everything we know about his character.

 

What sable is trying to say is that the OT was supposed to be WWII but Legacy turns the OT into WWI.

 

Actually, the Clone Wars is WW1.

The OT is more like a brushfire war which just happened to involve one really bad incident.

 

I don't see that at all. I'd say that the Clone Wars are WW1a and the OT is WW1b.

 

The OT isn't remotely as devastating/important as the NJO.

 

I wouldn't compare NJO to WWII because NJO involved a new enemy.

 

The problem with saying that Krayt's success is built upon Sidious is then you can turn around and say Sidious' success was built on Plagueis or even that Vitiate provided the blueprint.

Personally, my biggest hang up is that I dislike that the New Republic is undone so quickly. And that's one of the flaws of the New Jedi Order, that they changed the government even if it was not so much a collapse but a name change, but rolling with that, if the Galactic Alliance is the legacy of the Big 3, it's unfortunate that it was laid low so quickly and reduced to a state of inferiority to the Imperial remnant or at the conclusion at best parity. The Old Republic that Palpatine collapsed lasted at least 1,000 years from rising from a similar state of weakness to that the Galactic Alliance is in during SW Legacy, until it was transformed into the Galactic Empire, and there are ways to tell interesting stories with conflicts that don't involve the status quo being upset in such a major way.

I think one distinction from the Yuuzhan Vong War, which you can certainly argue is at least somewhat similar in that regard, is that the Big 3 are still around to rectify the situation, and that it is a much more temporary situation.

I think the best way I would say that I think the Expanded Universe should be approached philosophically is to treat each story as if it was the next episode in the films in terms of the narrative. I find it very unlikely that Episode VII is going to reduce the New Republic or the Galactic Republic or whatever they call it to a position of weakness just so they can emulate the original trilogy with the Rebel Alliance, but that is exactly what SW Legacy did.

 

Huh?

 

The New Republic loses a vast amount of territory in the Yuuzhan Vong War, but the Big 3 are participants in the war, and they ultimately regain everything that is lost (with maybe the Imperial remnant getting some scraps). And the conflict only lasts five years. The New Republic didn't lose the war and a new status quo emerge in which it was the Rebel Alliance again.

 

We couldn't credit Plagueis before that wonderful novel about him came out. If anything takes away from the brilliance of Palpatine it is that novel about how his master set up everything prior to the end of TPM.

Vitiate I'm completely ignorant of so I can't really offer a comment there.

Reality is, Krayt had nothing without the support of the Empire. Without Palpatine there would have been no Empire. Others helped with the grand plan of course(Bane, Plagueis, others I'm sure), but he was still the Sith that made it all happen. Plagueis couldn't have been Chancellor, and without that ability to become the leader of the Republic the whole plan comes apart.

I don't see how it works in reverse so far as that goes. Even if Plagueis put the pieces in place, he didn't end up doing any of the heavy lifting.

 

Glad to see someone else shares my ambivalence about the Plagueis novel's interpretation of Plagueis's role in the Grand Plan.

 

As the ardent defender of Starkiller that I am, I am going to go on a limb to defend Darth Krayt as well. By way of G.I. Joe the Animated Series.

I like Cobra Commander. Cobra Commander is pretty awesome. I also liked Serpentor. Yet, the two are constantly at odds in fandom because of the fact that the latter was created to replace the former.

For those not familiar with G.I. Joe, the Cobra organization was based on HYDRA and G.I. Joe was based on SHIELD but they couldn't get the license to both. So they changed Baron Strucker to Cobra Commander and Viper to the Baroness with Gorgon becoming Destro. The action figure line was hugely successful, aided by the multimedia project of both the comic book and the cartoon.

The executives at Hasbro, though, were determined to continue introducing new characters to keep the toy line going. One of these was "Cobra Emperor" who they told the show runners and comic book characters to introduce. This was irritating as they were all immensely fond of Cobra Commander and being told that they now had a villain ABOVE him was a big deal.

The comic book had Serpentor as an amazingly charismatic figure who was constantly manipulating everyone around him into liking him. He made friends with the common footsoldiers, was a tactical genius, and generally very likable. The cartoon version was just cheesy and people responded badly to him as he replaced Cobra Commander because CC was "incompetent" but lost just as many battles. In the end, the comics and cartoons both had Cobra Commander return and retake the throne.

Which is great but it irritates me when people put down Serpentor because he added a breath of fresh air into a comic's situation.

The thing is that Darth Krayt and Darth Sidious aren't in a competition. Darth Sidious is the main villain of the Star Wars films. Darth Krayt is the main villain of the 50+ comic books of Star Wars: Legacy. Darth Krayt is a perfectly adequate villain and he manages to be sufficiently intimidating right up until the Grand Finale even if he dresses like the Dragonborn from Skyrim.



Darth Krayt manages to plot turn the Empire against the Republic, the people against the Jedi, and the One Sith against everyone else--and it works. This is a big change from Jacen Solo entering legislature into the Senate which makes him Grand Dictator of EverythingTM. Yes, his plan has elements of Darth Sidious but no one is in serious danger of believing Darth Krayt isn't INSPIRED by the original. This is a bit like people not realizing Luke Skywalker is the original Jedi Knight. Luke Skywalker is as well known as frigging Superman. I love the Blue Beetle but I'm not worried people will love the Blue Beetle more than Superman.

Star Wars: Legacy is about telling its own SAGA from beginning, middle, to end. I'm actually irritated we don't have a Cade Skywalker novel yet. I also wouldn't be adverse to having more appearances by Krayt in the future.

He's a fun character. Just because he's THE DARK LORD doesn't mean he's bad. At the end of the day, he'll never be as big a bad as Morgoth.

Why? Because he's inspired by Morgoth.

Just like Sauron.

 

my bold

Is it.... a mythosaur?

 

Let's just say it was.

 

Regardless of what one villain could or couldn't have achieved without the works of another, that villain's still the one who achieved it (Sidious and Krayt) I hate that kind of argument because you can go down the line of the past saying X person couldn't have done something if not for Y person. Oh well, X person's still the one that did it in the end.

I think its unnecessary as well, because for all his accomplishments Sidious was still the more successful of the two.

 

What bothers me is the idea that you can't be a Dark Lord PERIOD without diminishing who or whoever. It's like everyone thinks Sidious' position as the preeminent bad guy is tenuous.

 

I actually think Krayt can't possibly diminish Palpatine due to how lame he is. Even in universe, Darth Bane, Darth Nihlus, Darth Andeddu, and Darth KFC all considered him to be a lame *** Sith and I felt inclined to listen to them as they are obviously the experts at being Sith (Well except Darth KFC since she only joined the club due to a lame retcon). I actually felt Wyyrlock was a much more interesting villain, so I was pissed when he was killed in favor of bringing Krayt back as the main villain.

 

Is it wrong I only thought Krayt became interesting when he started the Mon Calamari genocide?

 

I like Darth KFC.

 

I liked her back when she was just Vergere.