Full Series The Clone Wars: Episode 315: Overlords Discussion Thread

but which one is the chicken and which one egg
good point Tarkus i think they are meant to be like that -you don't know which came first

 

That's basically what Qui-Gon said.

I don't have the source, but I thought Lucas was quoted as saying that overall it is not a benevolent or malevolent thing. It has a light side and a dark side.

 

He said that? Where?

I think that way because if the self (ego) is completely subservient to the will of the Force, then it essentially becomes one with the Force. Or so is my theory.

 

Thank you!

 

In the ROTS novel. Without specifically mentioning the Sith, a similar sentiment appears in the script: It is a state acquired through compassion, not greed.

 

I have to point out that in the EU many Sith have returned as spirits.

 

They are typically bound to an object or place and are not the same as FGs.

 

Ah, thanks. Makes total sense to me.

 

I don't know what Lucas said (usually he makes sense, but sometimes not so much), but what I wrote is what I (and many others, I think) think the movies tell us about the Force. It is an overall positive "force", with a small but ever-pervasive dark side. "Good" may mean "light", but the movies don't say "light side". So there is the Force in general, which includes the dark side.

 

So here?s the official Darth_Tarkus? interpretation of Overlords, including how it affects some of the theories concerning the nature of the Force that have been discussed here of late.

DISCLAIMER: This is pure opinion/interpretation and as such what I back it with is not intended as definitive evidence, everyone is free to agree or disagree with anything here as they see fit.

Everything in this episode really happens in one way or another.

The opening scene where Rex and our three heroes are at the same location but can?t see each other is something that is caused by the unique Force properties of the ?planet.?

They get tractor-beamed into what they think is a space-station, and wake up on a ?planet? where they don?t remember landing their ship. Either the Father or the Force itself knocked out the crew and guided the ship down to the ?planet? surface safely.

The Daughter is a real being. She?s just not literally the Daughter of the Father of the Force. She thinks she is because that?s what she?s been raised to think, but she?s not. She truly believes that her and Son and Father make up ?the middle, the beginning, and the end,? of the Force because she?s been raised to believe that, but she?s wrong.

The seasons really do change with the time of day, because of the unique Force properties of this ?planet.?

When the rocks come crashing down and separate Daughter and Anakin from Obi-Wan and Ahsoka, it shows just how far from being all-powerful Daughter really is since she couldn?t foresee it or prevent it or even manage to avoid it. It was either the will of the Force or the doings of the Father.

The Qui-Gon Force-ghost is really Qui-Gon. I really like (I think it was) Gry?s interpretation that it was Obi-Wan?s presence on this extremely powerful and uniquely Force-amplifying planet that brings Qui-Gon back. Qui-Gon?s line ?I am here because you are here,? lays a solid groundwork for that theory. Also his is the only apparition that both is trying to keep the heroes united (rather than trying to separate them from Anakin) and doesn?t turn into another character before our eyes.

Obi-Wan tells Qui-Gon that although he?s done his best to train Anakin that ?balance eludes him,? which to me totally kills the theory that the Jedi do not seek balance and therefore the Dark Side has some inherent merit that needs to balance out the ?Good Side? (as Luke puts it in Ep. VI). Of course, I wasn?t partial to that theory to begin with. Still, if the Jedi don?t care about balance, which is one of the cornerstones of that theory, how can that line be explained?

I feel this theory is further discredited by Anakin?s line ?the only love I feel in my heart is haunted by what would happen should I let go? in his vision with the Son as Shmi Skywalker. That?s a much more revealing line for his personal story than this theory, but it seems to have an effect on it because it?s further proof that Anakin?s downfall is not attributable to disobeying the Jedi tradition of having no attachments and no intimate love (Light Side purity), but to his own perverted and selfish version of love which entails no amount of goodness that isn?t over-shadowed by greed (he can?t just enjoy Padme?s company because he loves her, the possibility of at some point not having her is always on his mind). Greed is one of the concepts that most starkly defines the Dark Side and what makes it wrong, Anakin?s downfall is brought on by his inability to fight the Dark Side and embrace only the Light (not because he failed to find some balance that intentionally included both).

Ahsoka?s vision of her future self is a ploy by the Father. He winds up telling her stuff that we all know to be mostly true for completely unrelated reasons, but his only motivation is to get her to leave behind Anakin (which is clearly the Father?s goal). Just like the apparition of Shmi says things to Anakin that are truly revealing about his character, it is only incidental as part of the effort to get him to stay on this ?planet.? So

 

It's only nuts if you refuse to accept the possibility that the Dark Side does not in fact represent evil in itself. That only the "giving in to the Dark Side" is evil, it's only evil if it dominates. Take my Ahrimanic example above, for instance, a dark spirit that negates the divine would foster things like technology. That in itself is not a bad thing, but if technology rules your life, you can see how the Empire begins to gain power.

 

I watched it again last night and had what I think is a slightly newish thought: Is there any significance to the fact that the Mortisians (Morticians?) are a *family*, given that Jedi don't have kids? (Leaving EU aside, since Mortis is a GL concept and GL cares not for small continuity niceties and inter-EU retcons).

The Jedi prohibition on attachment/marriage/parenthood is seen as a flaw that Luke and Anakin correct in the end. But the Force-Wielders are at least putatively a father and children. Symbolically that might foreshadow the fact that only a (forbidden) family arrangement will balance the Force in the Galaxy at large. But IU it makes me wonder if maybe the Force Wielder family got so damned powerful to begin with because in their original time frame Force Sensitives freely bred with each other, and generation after generation got stronger and stronger until we ended up with these guys, way too powerful for their own, or the Galaxy's, good. Hell, maybe that would've been a reason to establish the prohibition to begin with?

Thoughts?

 

Because "light" means other things than just "good".

This doesn't make sense. How can a theory that speaks of the need for balance also mean that the Jedi don't seek balance? Is this another case of "balance of the Force" being changed to the balance of other things?

 

The theory I'm referring to states that the Jedi had it wrong because they sought to abolish/avoid the Dark Side rather than accepting/using it as part of true balance, or, as someone put it, use of both the Light and Dark Sides as the "proper" way to wield the Force. I feel these lines in the episode refute that view.

 

Yes, but if they had wanted the concept to be portrayed that way, they would have done so. If they had said the term "the light side" in direct comparison to "the dark side", everyone would have known that they meant "good" in this context.

If the movies intend the light and dark side to be viewed as two sides to the Force "coin", equal in size, then why is it only that Sith usage of the dark side threatens to throw the Force out of balance? Why would Jedi usage of the "light side" not have the same potential to throw it out of balance? If the answer to that is that the Jedi actually do throw it out of balance, and that Order 66 was a necessary part of balancing the Force, I just disagree that the movies have that negative a view of the Force or of the Jedi. Anakin's turn (and his role in Order 66) was not a necessary part of fulfilling the prophecy... it simply showed him exercising free will and making bad decisions until he finally fulfilled the prophecy on DSII.

 

To both:

No, no, no, no, NO.









Don't you see that:
[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/JoZ/monkeylizardp.jpg]

Excellent point!

I'm thinking it could be Daughter, since she's the one who's at odds with the dark side, and she seems to embody dis-attachment to a degree the Jedi aren't even capable of. Which would explain why the advice seems 'darkish', because it feeds distrust, but it would also explain how it could be Son.

Either way, I don't think Daughter represents the light side in a good or pure way. However, I don't believe this directly reflects the attitude of the Jedi, as they are still doing all the good they can.

I'm thinking these anchorites are somehow misled or mistaken, or perhaps Son has already become so powerful that the dark side on Mortis clouds everything, including Father and Daughter's judgement. Which would reflect the state of the universe more accurately with regards to Sidious being secretly in control of the senate (and the dark side clouding everything).

I think Anakin leaving Mortis mirrors Luke leaving Dagobah. Both make the decision to leave, but ultimately cannot escape their destiny.

----------------------------

Also, WOW... a record-shattering 40 pages of discussion! This episode is quite the bomb.

 

Bacause while the Sith use the Dark Side exclusively, being an evil, unbalanced group, the Jedi use the Force as a whole, mostly without favouring a side.

For those that still think that the Jedi don't use the Dark Side in moderate, balanced doses, just think about it. Aren't they aggressive when fighting? Don't they destroy things that need to be destroyed? Aren't they cautious when facing danger? Don't they manipulate technology to their uses?

 

No, the Jedi don't feed on anger to battle. They're serene and focused, so as not to let their passions cause them to make mistakes. And that's where Mace in RotS and Obi-Wan (facing Maul) in TPM skimmed very close to the dark side.

There's a difference between being wisely cautious and being dominated by fear as a number one motivator. Recklessness would be a dark side attribute because it is the ego being overconfident.

 

EXACTLY! And that difference is simply one of intensity. What is caution but fear being used in moderation? No fear whatsoever results in wasteful recklessnes. Allowing fear to dominate you? Well, we know the drill. So there, too much Dark Side, bad. No Dark Side at all, bad.

Again, without a little bit of aggression, one would never be able to engage in battle. Yes, the Jedi don't allow their passions to overpower them, but once again, balance.

 

(never mind)

 

I feel pretty certain that part of the point of these folks is that they're out of touch in their "Ivory Tower". As powerful as they are, they obviously don't get the whole picture, and Father's insistence that Anakin is destined to stay on Mortis and take his place is clearly whack. They are too detached. Son seems to be the only one interested in the Galaxy at large, and you get the feeling that he'd just view it as a plaything (like your typical Star Trek godlike being). Father is fine with callously toying with the lives of Obi-Wan and Ahsoka, and "light side" Daughter has no objection to being ordered to kill an innocent. These guys have hubris beyond the PT Jedi. Maybe they're headed for a fall before the arc is over. But the cool thing is... I'm really not sure!

 

Here's a litte excerpt on Luciferic and Ahrimanic influences that better illustrates how "good" is found in balance:

 

I like that. Interesting...

 

I don't agree. Recklessness = overconfidence = ego = dark side. The opposite; fear, is also dark side. I wouldn't say cautiousness is fear in moderation. One can be cautious without being afraid. Only when someone is cautious because he is afraid, but then he's just: afraid, as in: motivated by fear.

No, I don't believe there is (or is supposed to be) a bit of aggression there. They're being selfless servants of the will of the Force, just doing what needs to be done. If there is aggression there, it can go wrong easily. (Like with Mace vs. Palpatine in RotS and Obi-Wan when Qui-Gon died before his eyes)

I'll get back to that later... too busy with all the current debate, and it would involve re-reading multiple pages worth of discussion, haha.

One thing that immediately comes to mind is that you were posting the thesis that the Force isn't out of balance yet. To which I replied that the dark side clouding everything doesn't sound very balanced.

 

Humble, the reason we can't see eye to eye on this is that you think of these emotions as absolutes, while I'm seeing them on a sliding scale. You think fear is just that, fear, being afraid. But that is just the near extreme of fear. The sentiment itself can be described as "the perception of a threat". This, if felt intensely becomes panic, but if felt in moderation is simply caution, and if not felt at all, it's stupid recklnessness. How can you be cautious if you don't have a healthy dose of fear? If you don't fear it, it poses no threat to you, therefore there's no reason to be cautious.

The same goes for every single emotion, be it Dark or Light.