ST Snoke/Andy Serkis Discussion Thread

I disagree. He filled the same role of being a dark overlord, and he was meant to echo aspects of that same archetype, but everything we know about the development process of TFA suggests they did want him to be a repeat of Palpatine.

They wanted him to be different but went with something more similar at first to make it more familiar to new audiences. It’s a failure of the sequels to TFA that he became such a clone of Palpatine. But TFA itself was setting up a character who was very much his own thing.

I’m not saying he was totally different. He was very similar as a starting point. But Snoke was a reimagining of the general Emperor character from Empire Strikes Back, not the character he became as he appeared in more movies. Much the same way that Kylo Ren was ANH-era Vader. It’s an undeveloped concept taken in a different direction. Except that they didn’t do that for Snoke, because Johnson wasn’t interested in the big bad of the trilogy.

I’d imagine all the stuff going on around Exegol was possibly closer to what Abrams intended for Snoke. That it fit Palpatine in the end was fine, but it’s undeniable that prior to Rise of Skywalker, Palpatine never acted like he had a secret world of dark-side cultists. I would even say Dark Empire Palpatine is totally different from canon Palpatine, it that helps clarify my point here.

 

He was a scarred-looking dark lord figure. Like Palpatine.

Sure he isn't called the Emporer. he is called the Supreme leader. Which is basically another way of saying HIGHER up.

He is responsible for turning Kylo to the dark side. Like the Emporer with Anakin.

In terms of his lines of dialogue. Its not too dissimilar from Palpatines appearance in Empire. Its just Palpatine was a giant head. While Snoke was a giant head and body! because different!

In terms of where it was heading. i have my doubts they had this unique backstory or characterisation for him because its clear all they wanted there was to make him like Palpatine. And while people will say TFA was allowed to do it but the next one wasn't... well no because they set a standard and template right there.

While nowadays when they do decide to get more into the creation of Snoke, we are at a time where they will probably do something unique there. But back in 2016 onwards? No way.

 

Snoke was less like Palpatine in TFA than he was in TLJ. Abrams and Kasdan didn't give him a personality. He was a talking corpse. Then, Johnson gave him more life and brought him closer to the cackling Emperor.
Interestingly enough, though, Palpatine was also a talking corpse for most of TROS. His development and general function in that film may very well be what (if anything) they originally had in mind for Snoke. It seems likely to me that if they were thinking of something "different" for this character, it was just a variant of the same old dark overlord.

 

Palpatine has become a very unique character. Perhaps down to Ian Mcdiarmid. And he is a figure who was expanded ALOT more in the PT and given more personality than even what he had in ROTJ. But given the way Episode 7 worked, the mission wasn't to do what the PT did. The mission was to redo what people remembered of the OT. So Snoke was a generic version of Palpatine that you see in Empire. He wasn't like PT Palpatine for a reason. And that's what episode 7-9 was about, taking things back to 1977-1983.

So in that respect, does anyone really think he was gonna be anything more than a generic Palpatine with a growly voice and without the added energy of Mcdiarmid? He stands a chance of being different NOW he has become some sorta mysterious clone, then he did when he was this scarred dark lord who runs the empi... i mean first order. Who also turned a Skywalker/Solo to the dark side.

 

That, to me, sounds like a them problem. Why bring this up? Why they may have made weak creative decisions doesn't really matter to the overall point: That they were weak creative decisions. The why only has relevance if they had no other choice but to make them and they didn't, as far as I think I've seen.

 

I created better villains on napkins in middle school.

 

agreed

 

Why they may have made weak creative decisions doesn't really matter to the overall point: That they were weak creative decisions. The why only has relevance if they had no other choice but to make them and they didn't, as far as I think I've seen.

 

i don't know i think what said wasn't about weak character but like thats the point of snoke is just a generic bad good to recontixizle the ot. They had no choice

 

How does that make them have no choice but to write it that way?

 

what? i think that if you look at they are sort of backed at the wall since maul is dead palgueis is dead you got explain his full back story we already have kylo they could make him a villain but hes already interesting so eh. tenebrous tho same position as palgueis count dookus story is over so no. creating a knew character would work tho we have been sort be kind of ridiculous since we have snoke the trilogy was a different story ten in need of a new villain just would've been pointless

 

I think the main point is that Snoke was not a priority for the filmmakers. They were more focused on the main characters but did so at the expense of secondary characters like him. There’s also a certain lack of imagination related to world-building, since so much of what they did have merely echoed the original movies. And that’s what truly hurts this and other characters. Because Lucas had a gift with world-building, an attention to detail that makes even secondary characters come alive. And he also had a greater sensitivity to mythological themes, so he likely would not have relegated the main villain to such a small role.

Certainly, I don’t blame Andy Serkis. He’s a great actor and was able to do a lot with what little he was given. Even in TLJ, where the character is far more similar to Palpatine, you still get a different angle that’s well portrayed by Serkis. So I think if he’d had as much raw material as McDiarmid to work with, just to act and explore the character’s villainy, we could’ve gotten something even more memorable. Because at the end of the day, he was well portrayed, there just wasn’t enough of him and what was there was too much of a story device and not enough of an antagonist.

Still, I do like to imagine what could’ve been. What could Serkis have done with filmmakers who gave the main antagonist the story and stage he deserved? It’s intriguing, though, and like all flawed works, you end up thinking more about it because you sense how much more it could’ve been.

 

Maul wasn't dead in the on screen canon when Disney got Star Wars.

No need for a full backstory explanation for Maul, not in an extensive way anyway.

Is Kylo interesting?

 

lol i don't think those are good points though. They killed maul off of star wars in rebels. Wasn't taking about maul there. Honestly, he is for most people

 

It's what is.

That happened in an episode released in 2017, after the ST started production. When Disney bought Star Wars and, potentially seemingly, rejected Maul coming back in regards to Lucas' pitches, he was alive in the on screen canon.

For those not in the know of the character being alive, I think a reveal in the climax of a different Episode 7 that Maul is alive, could engage some audience members.

 

i guess we just have different taste for me wouldve been like solo but if you like more fine lol, we all have opinions

 

The novel for TLJ pointed to Snoke just being an avatar basically of Palpatine. He may have been a creation of some sort but many of the thoughts of Snoke in the book are actually Palpatine's background just like the Serkis statements about Snoke's background. Its never really made clear if Snoke was his own person or not at times but Snoke clearly didnt have the history he had when his thoughts were in that book. It was clearly Palpatine's history.

 

How could you write all of that vagueness in bold and then end with "it's clearly Palpatine"?

And this may be the book, but you haven't provided quotes either. Just a lot of assertions. Just like the other poster who said it was clear but then could not would not post those quotes. The movie is what counts. That's what's being discussed. And to bring up actor interviews, Andy Serkis also said: “No, he’s a new character in this universe. It is very much a newly-introduced character...He’s aware of what’s gone on, in the respect that he has been around and is aware of prior events. I think it’d be fair to say that he is aware of the past to a great degree.”

That clearly does not sound like Palpatine. There's no allusion about Snoke not being who he really is. Sounds like he's been around for a while, witnessed the OT events, and is now in charge.

 

It was all planned from the beginning. By George Lucas Sr.

 

So you’re stating that in the novelisation of TLJ it states that Snoke is an avatar of Palpatine??? Really???

 

And then they threw out that plan and thought they could do better.

 

No, it was all part of the plan laid out by George Sr. He planned it even before he met George Jr's mother.

 

The TLJ novelization can be interpreted as referencing Palpatine’s own backstory, but that was very likely not the intention. The writer only knew what Rian Johnson knew and what was in his script. He did intentionally write that portion of the book so that it was generally vague, and luckily for Publishing, that worked well with what Abrams eventually did with Rise of Skywalker. But I think at the time of writing TLJ, Snoke was still intended as a new character who had made use of Palpatine’s machinations for his own purposes.

 

I think by Your Snoke Theory Sucks, RJ was simply telling us that Snoke sucks. A creatively bankrupt facsimile of Palpatine that should have never been.

 

Well he wasn't directing that at JJ.

He was 'joking' at the fandom that was invested in theorizing about the thing they love. Not a great look. Even if it's true.