Full Series Official Darth Vader in Rebels Discussion Thread

More likely he's probing Vader to see if he tells him the truth and admits it as he can read his mind/feelings and Vader is wise enough to admit it rather than deny it to his face and suffer the consequences. Vader was kept at arms length even in ROTJ and some of the cut scenes also make that more dramatic of how much Vader had fallen from favor at that point. So we know Vader is disciplined for his failures, as was Dooku/Tyranus. Also remember Sidious punished Tyranus once he tried to stick up for his apprentice(Ventress). Sidious isnt keen on losing power, it is also why he went out've his way to destroy Maul. He did not want the possibility of being overthrown, even by his former apprentice. Sidious can tell the apprentice many things to keep him on a string and trying to think one day, you will take my place. Sidious in ROTS makes it very clear he searches for the key to immortality. Maybe Sidious also was keeping Vader around to learn of Jinn's ability as somehow Anakin during the late CW was communicating with Jinn and learnt of this ability to cheat death and he was keeping it from Sidious.

 

Vader needs to be used pretty sparingly in Season 2 otherwise he's going to fall into the Inquisitor trap of being clearly more experienced/powerful than our heroes but they get away because plot, not because of any particular skill or smarts on their part. I am guessing he'll be in the beginning of the season (hence their flight from Lothal) and presumably at the end (because it's DARTH VADER, he's kind of a big deal) but in between he'll not feature directly as much. Perhaps something like Ozai from The Last Airbender, clearly he'll need to be defeated somehow but he's well out of the heroes league right now.

 

Imo he should be well out of range for the entire show, and only be defeated at the end through heroic sacrifice. A lot more people like Vader than they like the ghost crew anyways.

 

Hey, I LOVE the Ghost crew!

 

I like the Ghost crew minus Ezra, but Vader is something else , I'm sorry . Use him sparingly, please.

 

I've mixed feelings about the crew, I like Sabine and Chopper, the rest annoys me, especially Ezra. If it were up to me, I'd have Vader chop his head off.

 

I say at the most have 3 confrontation between Crew/ Vader and have the last one be where someone dies.

 

Realistically Vader NEEDS to get at least one kill to his name to cement his status as more competent/dangerous than the Inquisitor (who turned out to be pretty disappointing in hindsight), we've been told in-universe and out that Vader's arrival is a game changer - now they must prove it. It doesn't matter how much the other characters fear him if the audience don't honestly believe there is any danger. Hopefully this won't be a case of introducing a 'cool' character for one episode/arc then having Vader off him casually for cheap villain cred.

 

Vader is mostly likely only going to directly involve himself in the premier and finale, the new inquisitor's are there to be the lightsaber fodder for the crew to fight. A good method of giving Vader a presence without making him seem incompetent from constant getaways and\or defeats at the hands of the good guys.

 

I disagree on this. I don't think it's necessary to kill off one of the main characters just to establish Vader's street cred. You might kill them off for other reasons, but doing so to enhance Vader's characterization isn't required at this point.

Spoiler: Siege of Lothal Spoilers

In the Rebels 2 season premier, Vader more than fully established himself as the apex predator of the GFFA. Kanan and Ezra (and Sabine to a lesser extent) get stomped on very quickly, and are allowed to escape only because Vader intends to follow them back to the Rebel fleet (sound familiar?). Then, Vader in his TIE Advanced, essentially wipes out nearly all of Phoenix Squadron, and destroys the Rebel flagship. In this case, no main characters died, nor did they have to in order to establish that Vader is a wrecking ball far above that of the Inquisitor in terms of competency and prowess.

In my mind, there's nothing else that needs to be done here to demonstrate the sheer superiority of Vader in Rebels over...well...everyone except maybe the Emperor.

 

Yeah, I admit perhaps insisting he must kill was an exaggeration, and the example cited is a good example of his lethality and danger value being proven without resorting to death. I guess it's more of a problem I had with the Inquisitor last time around where he was consistently and convincingly portrayed as a better fighter than Kanan and co. and treated with fear by the characters. However it rapidly approached the point where I for one stopped believing he would ever actually manage a convincing and lasting win, not because he wasn't good enough to win but because every single time he'd get cocky and they'd get away, again - it was actually Tarkin who gets any credit for any credibility the Imps manage to claw back in the season one finale.

Vader faces the same dilemma, clearly he'd outfight the Jedi, outfly Hera and outplot their schemes, as that's the level he operates at - so if he still somehow lets them get away repeatedly then his reputation and his actual prowess diverge for the worse; there are only so many times the writers can pull the 'he LET them get away!' card without one or both sides looking kind of stupid.

This is why I hope (and believe) he's not going to be directly involved as much as Inquisitor Mk.1 was. The majority of the Imperial action is going to be Kallus and the Nu-Inquisitors, Vader's personal involvement serves as 'drop everything and run' button for the Rebels. He should be the Terminator in space - doesn't stop, can't be negotiated with, you can't beat him in a fight you buy time to get away if you're lucky.

 

If Vader doesn't kill a real character, it just shows they don't have the balls to use him properly. To use any big villain properly, actually ...

 

Oh, he will. Don't you worry.

 

Vader didn't need to kill Leia in ANH, or Luke in ESB, in order to establish his badassery credentials. He captures/tortures Leia, he deflects Han's blaster fire like it's nothing, and he toys with and then de-hands Luke. In NONE of those cases did anyone die, but Vader's "don't mess with me" cred was firmly establish nonetheless. Hell just Force chocking that loud-mouth imperial on the Death Star (I can never remember his name) did a good job of that.

 

He did kill one of the main characters in the first movie he was in. Obi-Wan was a main character in ANH.

 

Yeah, movie Vader showed right from the beginning he was extremely dangerous, his defeat of Kenobi only served to enhance it. However show Vader has to try and maintain that same level of threat throughout, which is going to be tricky as logically the entire crew (minus Ahsoka) would serve as a speed-bump at best to a Vader on his A-game and even Ahsoka is probably at the level where getting out alive and with all limbs attached counts as an impressive success. Show Don't Tell as the old writers' motto goes, and just as importantly don't show one thing (the rebels escaping unscathed, repeatedly) and tell us something totally different (Inquisitor the 1st is too smart and powerful to mess with). Hopefully that lesson has been learned.

 

I've said in other threads, but I think people are thinking that Vader will have a lot of screen time this season. I simply don't think this will happen and is an over estimation. I think we will have him in the premier and in the finale. The rest of the episodes in between will be filled with the new inquisitors who provide chase to the crew for the season. I think there are other ways to assert Vader's dominance other than killing a character in the show.

Spoiler

And if I understand what we have been told about from the premier, he asserts his ways in the force rather convincingly and strongly. He also apparently lets the rebels escape with the intent of using them to locate the rest of the rebel fleet.

With that in mind, not sure why we need to have Vader kill someone I think it shows that he is not only strong and to be feared, but also calculating. At which point he would be used sparingly, and still very much have credibility that has been established in canon.

It actually distresses me that people think that the only way for Vader to establish credibility is to have him kill a character in the show. I can't decide if it distresses me because it is so expected, or because people just want to see Vader go full on combat domination and go to town on Jedi.

 

I think you misunderstand. Vader doesn't have to kill anyone. But if he doesn't, it just confirms to me that the showrunners don't have the balls to use him properly. It would be just further evidence on a whole pile of evidence that Filoni can't handle good villains well. Their past showings don't convince me they'll use this villain well.

If they were for example James Luceno, I would give them more credit.

In Rebels, they really like to pull punches. Kanan wasn't allowed to kill Inky, because that could be seen as "immoral", Inky conveniently offed himself. When they sell disruptors to a shady figure, the shady figure is later revealed as harmless guy.

I don't want them to pull any punches with Vader, he deserves more than that.

Since they were already working on season 2 when season 1 aired (assumption on my part, but a logical one), I'm not sure they could learn that lesson. If you look at TCW, Ventress was also supposed to impress but was defeated in pretty much every single engagement with the heroes. So I can't really get my hopes up here.

 

I'm not so sure that I did misunderstand. Actually, this supports my point: He must kill a character to assert dominance. Whether it is because this is expected, lack of faith from some in the audience regarding the writers' ability, or some other reason.

Forgive me, I know he is a writer and his books have been praised, but I haven't read them.

I haven't read anything to support that it could be seen as "immoral" if Kanan killed the Inquisitor. Is this speculation on your behalf or is there something that backs this up? The main crew has killed many stormtroopers, are we going to call that immoral as well? This crosses into more an ideological/philosophical discussion of what is right and just in their struggle against the Empire, but if you want to have that discussion I'm open to it. Also, Vizago hasn't been shown to be one way other the other.

I think he deserves to be portrayed as more than just a a massively successful Sith that kills Jedi and other characters.

 

Right now, there is a serious lack of tension in the show, at least for me. Whether they kill someone or something otherwise horrible happens, they better demonstrate they can do it and do so soon.

You don't use Darth Vader or Tarkin if you're averse to killing characters. You use another, harmless villain instead.

Oh c'mon, Inky's death followed the typical trope in which the villain somehow kills himself. Even the two incompetent imperial officers were conveniently killed by Imperials. And if I read the spoilers right,

Spoiler

Tua

is also conveniently killed by Imperials! I hope that at least Kallus isn't killed by Vader or something.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfDisposingVillain

Of course, the heroes kill loads of stormtroopers, but according to Filoni those are just automatons, so it's fair game I guess...

Vizago has been shown as harmless/humorous character in the finale of season 1.

You're trying to distract here. He can be all that while being a killer too.

 

All I am reading is that "I want this to happen because I don't think they have it within themselves to do it." Just because they don't kill anyone, doesn't necessarily make them harmless.

So we are citing TV tropes now to say why he couldn't do it? I would think that the evidence in the show over the course of the first season would empirically show that Kanan wasn't up to the task until the end of the season. Still didn't show me how it would be considered immoral if Kanan killed him. The Empire doesn't reward failure. Look in ESB for Vader's solution to his subordinates failing him, and as you already pointed out Aresko and Grint. There is precedent for this in canon. Also I believe that someone posted a passage from Tarkin (I think?) where Vader threatened to have one of his subordinates, some sergeant who was apparently a still in service clone trooper, retired from service. If I remember that quote correctly, I believe that clone was somewhat fearful of that prospect. This also has some historical draw from out own history as well, but I think that can be viewed as secondary and sources for why this occurs in the SWU.

You are shifting from your argument from the morality of Kanan killing The Inquisitor to it now fulfilling a trope as to why he couldn't do it. If you want to say he couldn't kill the Inquisitor because of the trope cool and I agree it is a trope, but that was not the original premise you stated. They aren't mutually exclusive, but you still haven't explained how it can be seen as immoral. Kenobi killed Grievous in ROTS, could this not also be considered immoral? Was it acceptable because of Grievous' actions in the war or is there another reason?

Then we are making the distinguishing difference between a faceless (stormtrooper) character and one with a face? This would create a double standard morality-wise...

Humorous does not equal harmless. Again, we haven't been shown one way or the other yet because at this time there is no incentive for him not to work with the crew. I think you need to remember that characters like Hondo and Vizago have been shown to be motivated by self interest. Hondo did attack and board the Crucible even though he had done work for Anakin on Onderon.

[/quote]
Actually, I'm not. What I was subtly saying that they need to give him more depth as Vader in canon during this time period. Simply making him a killer who offs characters makes him more one-dimensional. Hence why I am saying that he doesn't need to kill anyone to maintain credibility or keep his menacing, relentless nature.

 

I tell people this Vader will be the Sidious of this show
Remember how in TCW Sidious barely ever showed up that's what I think will happen he will order around the lackeys and only get involved when he needs to.

 

Actually it sort of does. Being killers is an important attribute of both of them, they just go about it with different styles.

The trope has to do with morality, please read the text on tv-tropes, it explains in what way. Basically the hero can't be allowed to murder the villain because otherwise his white vest gets sullied and because the audience might feel uncomfortable about it. Mooks are often ignored in this. It's not a moral I agree with, by the way, but that doesn't change that it is a popular trope. While there is precendence to Imperials killing other Imperials, it happened excessively often in the show. Basically any named villain who dies has been the victim of their peers.

Hey, it is Dave Filoni who called them "automatons". It is him who has dehumanized the stormtroopers, the show is operating on his logic, not mine. And yes, it is totally a double-standard.

I was waiting for the weapons deal to bite them in the ass, but it just looks like the rug will be pulled over it. Maybe I am wrong about Vizago, hopefully, but I doubt it.

Actually, I'm not. What I was subtly saying that they need to give him more depth as Vader in canon during this time period. Simply making him a killer who offs characters makes him more one-dimensional. Hence why I am saying that he doesn't need to kill anyone to maintain credibility or keep his menacing, relentless nature.[/quote]

No, being a killer is part of the whole package. You're basically telling me that Hannibal Lector shouldn't kill people. That doesn't make much sense. It's better to make the kid show without Doctor Lector then.

And no, being a killer doesn't make a character one-dimensional, or do you consider Michael Corleone thus?

 

I agree it is an attribute, but it is not something that needs to be repeatedly shown to be done either to assert his character dominance. I answer more of this at the end.

I read it while it does explain why it can't happen trope wise, I disagree because I don't really think that the part of the trope that reasons why it can't happen that he would become like the Inquisitor. We know that plot wise that wouldn't happen, or his story would end up copying some of Anakin/Vader's story after he killed Dooku. Also, I think "excessively often" is a little bit of hyperbole. In my eyes, Kanan would have completely justified in killing the Inquisitor and still would have been able to keep his morality intact in doing so.

Personally I think a morally conflicted Kanan would be a much more interesting character. They could still go this route though I guess with one of the new inquisitors.

If you want to be technical, the dehumanizing of stormtroopers began in the OT. Filoni is continuing on that premise that Lucas introduced originally.

I wouldn't be surprised if the weapons make an appearance in the show at a later date, the question is who will have control of them.

Correct, it is a part of the package. Like I said at the opening, it isn't something that needs to be repeatedly shown either. Doing that makes him more one-dimensional. I'm not denying that Vader or either of the two characters you cited are killers. That is very much a part of who the character is; however, Michael Corleone also ended up running a criminal enterprise IIRC. Allow Vader to show his command prowess that was initially shown in ESB and TCW, expound on his methodical nature. If he ends up killing someone at that point, then it would make that death more complex and interesting. This allows for his relentless, menacing nature to be shown and if a character death happens, then it gives context to that.

I see where you are coming from now, but I think I need to clarify why I initially misunderstood where you were coming from. Having Vader show up to solely to deal death makes him more one-dimensional. I think we can at least be on the same page there.

 

My point is that they took away the hard choice from Kanan. They "pulled a punch" in having the Inquisitor off himself like this. Like you, I don't think it would make Kanan evil or anything, it would just show that war is a dirty business. But apparently the showmakers were afraid to have him stain his white vest. They didn't even allow for a discussion whether Kanan is immoral for doing it or not.

I hope that the next villains don't conveniently dispose of themselves, or otherwise I will probably give up all hope on the show.

At least Lucas didn't have his characters joke about them while slaughtering them like video game monsters.

Well, I disagree about your first sentence. Personality traits need to be shown repeatedly and not just ignored because it is "inconvenient". And right now, unfortunately, Rebels is all about conveniences and contrivances. I don't think it would be good for the show if they actively avoided showing Vader and Tarkin as killers.

I agree. But I am less worried about misrepresentation of his other aspects, more worried that the show will pull punches like it always does.