Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by DarthPhilosopher, Aug 23, 2011.
Interesting that he says the character who survives. Were the others not meant to?
I never thought of it like that, I always focused on the 'his' in the sentence as being the tell.
I don't think there's much to it, though, GL seemed to be very concerned about not making it obvious who was going to live or die around that time, to keep the suspense intact. It's one of the reasons he claims he came up with the line about the 'Other' in ESB. There's also his 1979 chat with Alan Arnold, in which he says, "I won't say who survives and who doesn't, but if we are ever able to link together all three (trilogies), you'd find the story progresses in a very logical fashion."
Just to clarify & bump: http://boards.theforce.net/star_wars_saga/b10456/30565196/r31993707/
I would go along with the majority of this except - especially given that the Jedi have their roots in GL's mind in the Samurai - the Sith would have come first. This is how the use of the Force came to notice, for the warrior aristocracy that were the Sith began to meditate upon the Force and sought power through it. This would explain the title 'Darth', as a left-over from the aristocratic beginnings of the order. The Jedi, in this version of events, would be former Sith who became disenchanted with the feudal and hereditary nature of the galaxy, and the many wars this seemed to engender, and who embraced the ideals of democracy and meritocracy being espoused by the fledgling Republic.
This would also tie up why the Star Wars universe has elected Queens and Princesses as the stalwarts of democratic principles - the titles are simply left-overs from previous political systems democratised.
"Once you start down the Dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." -Yoda (Did the Jedi forget their origins?)
Did Anakin not find redemption? Both b-Wan and Luke used anger, but could see the error of their ways and turn away from it. It is, of course, a good idea to warn any budding Jedi against the darkside, and indeed accepting the darkside will dominate your destiny. But, if one is a Sith in training, but finds that you cannot accept the doctrine.
And, of course, those who started the Jedi may not have been Jedi themselves but rather passed on their knowledge of what pitfalls to avoid to their young learners.
I know that Anakin found redemption, but they didn't know about him 1000 years ago.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that redemption could not exist prior to Anakin? If so, why?
Here's my thinking on this. The Jedi, in their purest form (as exemplified by Yoda's lessons) would not seek power for themselves, so how did the Jedi learn the power to control the Force? More so, if "wars not make one great", and the lightsabre is the weapon of the Jedi.... why would the peaceable Jedi have developed any weapon at all? How does a peaceful order of monks transform into an order of warrior-monks? They don't. You won't find Buddhist monks taking up arms against their enemies. The only realistic proposal - as I see it - is that the order is derived from a warrior order, but turned away from its elitist, war-mongering roots.
I liked the notion from Dawn of the Jedi, that the order originally started off as "grey" - believing in "The Balanced force" and being neither especially altruistic or especially selfish. But then, splitting into two factions.
Yes, although I didn't elaborate enough, this is pretty much what I had in mind. That they were the warrior nobility of the old galaxy; that their order gained an ethical/philosophical disposition (as the Samurai did) in conjunction with their warrior ethos; that some of them turned away from the elitist/hereditary nature of the order and emphasised meritocracy; that as the fledgling Republic gained more converts/power the elitist aspect of the order reacted to the destabilising of their feudal heritage by seeking to be at the pinnacle of the power pyramid instead of simply serving to protect it. And hence, two orders came to be with opposing views of how things ought to be.
This is essentially how the Jedi (and Sith) evolved in the drafts of the original film(s), btw. At first the Jedi are very Samurai-like, serving lords and such. And the Sith are simply a group of pirates taught to use the dark side by a fallen Jedi named Darklighter.
Mass Effect 2
Shepard and Miranda.
Sidious was not the only sith to destroy the republic?
Do you know anything about the EU?
No. Not enough at least. Apparently I don't since I'm asking. I have looked on timelines. The jedi have been around for 20,000 or so years. The sith came from jedi civil wars I believe. There were many different wars between the jedi and the sith but I never thought that the sith have ever won any of those wars until Sidious did.
Yes, but your explanations for how the Sith could have come first without a redeemed Sith founding the Jedi are good ideas. In fact, I love them, particularly the idea of the Sith being vengeful nobility.
That's what I tend to think, too. It's more interesting to think of the Jedi as underdogs who overcame the Sith traditions.
Yes, it makes sense, to me, of the dialogue between Sidious and Maul. Revenge is sought by those who feel wronged. It also adds some depth to the Sith motivation; that they believe in another way - and it is a thread that can be followed in Palpatine's probing of Anakin; "...a life of...significance." Also, Count Dooku - being of noble birth (whatever that might mean within the context of the Republic) fits the idea particularly well.
If there's one moment that jars me in ROTS it isn't Vader's "Nooooo". For me it is the grotesque, cackling pantomime villain that Sidious becomes in his fight with Yoda.
Anyway, glad you like the idea and that you've seen it's potential.
To be fair, I was never impressed with the Emperor even in the OT. He just wasn't that scary (compared to Vader). He's more ridiculous in ROTS but at least I actually respect him now, seeing how he outsmarted everyone else.