ST Who's The Baddie?

One of the things that I find compelling about the Mizzlewump synopsis is how simply the baddie is dealt with. Yes, some retconning would be required in the form of a former student of Palps. But, if Mizzlewump is to be believed, the new apprentice takes control from Palp's former student pretty quickly. Thus, we are left with a main baddie who is completely new, but tied to what's come before. If his name is indeed Ruin, that would suggest a fascination with the origins of the Sith, providing mechanism to introduce this lore.

Whether this rumor is true or not, the idea put forward provides a very economical way to cover a lot of ground quickly in establishing a new villain. One reason I think it's worth keeping in mind.

 

Well said. The big reason people dismiss the idea is because they're so rigid about the Rule of Two, although we've seen time and again that the Sith have no problem training others in the ways of the Sith without officially naming them Sith -- it's largely an issue of semantics. For example, Palpatine essentially grooms Anakin to be a Sith from the end of TPM to ROTS despite having Dooku as his apprentice. All he ever needs to do is to make it official after Anakin shows interest. There's no special training other than Anakin's Jedi training. Palpatine says, Join me in the darkside. Anakin says, Yes. Palpatine: Voila! Rise, Darth Vader!

So of course Palpatine could have had a student he was grooming. All he had to do was make it unofficial. But then of course when Vader and Palp die, there's no need for the student to remain in the shadows. They'd step up and declare themselves a Sith. Pedants make this whole scenario unnecessarily impossible all the time.

 

People are rigid because Lucas pounded it into are heads. But then turns around and ignores the Rule in the Clone Wars. Then declares the Clone Wars canon. And it seems the only reason he did this is the fact that he felt at that time there would be no more movies.

 

I don't think he ignores the Rule in TCW. I think it's consistent with his ideological grooming of Anakin in the films. He's always training Anakin despite Dooku's "official" status.

The Sith naturally seek more power. Sometimes that means they train "assassins" on the side, like Ventress, who is a Sith in all but name.

And in the OT, you have Vader and Palp openly talking about using Luke as some kind of a Sith recruit. Heck, in ESB you have Vader overtly trying to break the Rule and take Luke as his apprentice. Pedants let the rules get in the way of how the Sith actually function. And you can see how they really operate in the films as well as TCW. And even in Rebels with the Inquisitor, who you might as well call a Sith apprentice or assassin. He works for the Sith. He acts like a Sith. He has the powers of a Sith. Only pedants think the Rule of Two is some absolute metaphysical Truth. It ain't.

 

Not unlike this.

 

IIRC originally there was supposed to be two new Death Stars in RotJ. Wonder if they retconned the second one into a planet, then decided Luke was integral to its functioning? Maybe they retconned the idea that that was what Palps wanted Luke for in the first place? Maybe, like Anakin, Luke was to be a slave, chained to an infernal machine.

 

That fits Palpatine's character to a T.

And of course the Sith would want revenge on Luke for turning Vader.

 

They sought of gave themselves a get out with the rule of two by allowinging a Sith Lord to have a secret apprentice, the Sith Accolyte, in TCW's. But then we've been having this conversation since TPM because it made so little sense that the Sith would deliberately put themselves at a numerical disadvantage. But looking at it as the two Sith Lords being the grand masters and having the Inquisitors next and finally the Accolytes, the Sith have a much more reallistic and ballanced structure that can be compared to real terrorist factions.

 

I like the way Dra--- puts it. The Rule of Two is not some metaphysical barrier that cannot be broken. It isn't a Natural Law that describes cause and effect without variation. It was a rule put in place to try to keep the lust for power and backstabbing in check. Funny thing, the further they go in it's thousand-year plan, the more power the Sith get, the more they are corrupted by it, and the more they seem to ignore this rule.

One could argue that the Sith are brought down (in part) because they failed to follow the Rule of Two, and I kinda like that.

 

What kind of perplexed me,was the notion that with the Sith, the apprentice was always destined to murder it's master at some point, so that they could then take over the mantle of master (and take on an apprentice etc) Was this something that every Sith Lord deemed to be an inevitable fact? The Rule of 2?

 

On the Rule of Two - this post covers most of the reasons why it exists, and what it's really for:

 

Do you think that people would remember one small line from a movie they didnt care for in comparison to ANH..."Always two there are" and understand the concept of Rule of 2? Or even realize theres a rule?

A lot of my friends like star wars but they dont know all the details to the level that some of us do. Nor would that retain that piece of information. I think they understand there was a bad guy called the emperor but they couldnt tell you what planet he repped for, his name (chancellor/senator was said more), how many years went by in between OT and PT, and et cetera.

So when im thinking of scenarios i have to run it under the "its for kids" + "do they have to explain it" + "casual fan knowledge" + "is it a good story" - The only place i see for a setup to quickly bring you up to speed is to say something in the opening crawl.

"After the Battle of Endor, the dreaded IMPERIAL EMPIRE has elected BAD GUY and continue to hunt down the REBEL" et cetera (in which we dont know this guy is bad guy or sith or what but it introduces him to us that he is a guy in charge of the empire today.).

or if its the emperor then we could say something similiar to:
"Ten Years after the battle at ENDOR, the imperial EMPIRE has retained tight control over thousands of systems. Led by the empires sinister agents, IMPERIAL INQUISITORS," et cetera. (in which like Darth, their leader will look like the guy in charge - kind of how in ANH all the white troopers came in and then there was this guy in all black...and in charge. So maybe the rumor of dr doom rip off will look like a different version of the other inquisitors. Maybe its programmed with Palpatines A.I and maybe talks like the emperor, hates the jedi like the emperor...who knows)

Do you think the villian is going to require people to know a backstory from other sources or do you think all the nerds on set filming this will keep it simple for everyone? I think the story CANT be that complicated...its star wars.

 

There's certainly no reason why they can't make a movie for SW geeks (us) and the average fan. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In other words, just because you have a reference to the Rule of 2 or prophecy (whatever) doesn't mean that it has to be done in a way that ruins the film for Joe or Jane Average.

 

I anything, it is the nerds that require the explanation, not the general public. To the average movie goer it would be another apprentice (or whatever they go with). Only geeks like us would start foaming at the mouth, "Rule of Two..you broke the Rule of Two...I hate you, JJ Abrams!".

 

Why do all who turn to the Darkside feel they need to follow rules?

 

Because then they'd be rebels and we all know they're scum.



















wait

 

My one disagreement with this post is that Anakin didn't follow the Sith ideology prior to the "henceforth you shall be known as Vader" scene. When Anakin said "I pledge myself to your teachings", he was saying, "From this moment forward, I shall follow the Sith ideology."

Being groomed to be a Sith doesn't make one a Sith. Rather, following the Sith ideology makes one a Sith. One can be in the grooming process without following the ideology.

 

That's basically what I was saying, but it's more gray than your post suggests. For example, in AOTC we can see that Anakin has been influenced enough by Palps to believe that totalitarianism -- having a strong leader who forces people to agree -- is right and democracy wrong. That's already the first fundamental step in thinking like a Sith, IMO. And it's no surprise with this ideology of might makes right that Anakin massacres the sandpeople like he does. For all intents and purposes, Anakin is already partly a Sith apprentice in AOTC. Palpatine's influence is subtle, but absolutely there.

When one is being groomed to be a Sith, part of the process is internal. A way of thinking and perceiving the world. It's not merely how to use lightening, etc. I would argue that this might makes right ideology is far more important to Sith ideology than merely hating your enemies. Not only do you need to hate them, but you need to feel it's appropriate to punish them as you see fit -- to use power as you see fit. That's Anakin in AOTC.

 

And in ROTS he's already making use of his anger, even if he holds back initially.

From the novel:

Skywalker leapt from the balcony. Even as the boy hurtled downward, Dooku felt a new twist in the currents of the Force between them, and he finally understood.
He understood how Skywalker was getting stronger. Why he no longer spoke. How he had become a machine of battle. He understood why Sidious had been so interested in him for so long.
Skywalker was a natural.
There was a thermonuclear furnace where his heart should be, and it was burning through the firewalls of his Jedi training. He held the Force in the clench of a white-hot fist. He was half Sith already, and he didn't even know it.
This boy had the gift of fury.
And even now, he was holding himself back; even now, as he landed at Dooku's flank and rained blows upon the Sith Lord's defenses, even as he drove Dooku backward step after step, Dooku could feel how Skywalker kept his fury banked behind walls of will: walls that were hardened by some uncontrollable dread.
Dread, Dooku surmised, of himself. Of what might happen if he should ever allow that furnace he used for a heart to go supercritical.
Dooku slipped aside from an overhand chop and sprang backward. "I sense great fear in you. You are consumed by it. Hero With No Fear, indeed. You're a fraud, Skywalker. You are nothing but a posturing child."

 

For most of their history there was a Sith Order, and a couple of times this order ruled empires. Then one Sith decided the Rule of Two was the way to go and enforced it. So the Rule of Two isn't really the true Sith way. Who's to say the new Sith, if there are new Sith, are going to follow the unorthodox Rule of Two. Perhaps the new Sith go back to the way it was meant to be and reestablish the Sith Order with the intent of bringing the galaxy under the rule of a Sith Empire.

 

My theory is that Luke has created the new Jedi order in complete secret somewhere in deep space and finding its new hidden location could be the big macguffin for the remnants of the Empire to seek out. It would serve as sort of like the Rebel base in ANH to be destroyed.

 

Or someone. More likely a new antagonist. But that is an idea.

 

I would still love to see a triumvirate of Sith in the new trilogy. Borrow a little from KOTOR II, especially the concepts between the individual Sith. One being the fist, the power of the trio, one being the public face, and another being the brains behind them all.

 

This could work.