Lit What makes a Character that Character; Reboots, Reimagines and Recanonization

Unfortunately, I don't remember the particulars. There was some source book that came out after NJO describing the Fosh as basically all acting like Vergere that was very controversial at the time (and mostly forgotten now). Hopefully someone else remembers more details.

 

As far as I know people did call Jacen that in LotF. I mean when a guy who basically redeems an entire species suddenly becomes evil because he blindly trusts a very suspicious vision and is willing to abbandon all of his principles despite having been told his entire life that the future is in motion and about the dangers of trusting visions. Yet he throws that all away in an instant, and even before that he acts very differently like he would have been in NJO. Why? Because the authors wanted to make him a villian and get rid of him as a character but where too lazy to actually come up with a reason that actually needed work to be put into it.

So they went for Deus Ex Vision instead and changed Jacen into a character who would actually believe that.

Yes you can argue, justify this as development or whatever, but if you do that you can also justify a human Plagueis like "Teneborus always wanted to name his apprentice Plagueis, so when a chose a human in this timeline he still went with the same name. And that human just so happened to develop similar to the Legends Plagueis".

 

How do you make a character out of character when you get to choose what they say and do?

 

Debatably, there is no winning strategy here. Revan is always going to be OOC if his character is, as perceived by audiences, the deliberately-chosen actions and dialogue by every individual member of the audience. The only way to get an "in-character" look at Revan, assuming this is a valid metric of his/her character, is to somehow find an average path taken by players.

How you go about generating that statistical analysis, good luck.

 

Oh I think its possibly less Outright OOC but more putting a face on someone, and a personality who really should have had one. Meetra Surik might be an even better example as she is merely a sidekick to Revan and all of Kreias lessons seem to have had zero impact unpon her.

Also again the 300 years of torture is kind of a similar 'soft retcon' to what I suggested for a human Plagueis.

 

The Exile gone done dirty, narratively speaking, but TOR's Revan was entirely in keeping with Kreia's characterisation of him: an extremely powerful and self important individual with a messiah complex. (She frames it positively, of course, because she's Kreia. Well, except the part about his loving the use of machines to work his will, which she found distasteful)

He might not have aligned with any whiter-than-snow Paladin versions people played in KotOR, but that was a guy totally unburdened by the memories that eventually returned. When all was said and done, the mind wipe ultimately just gave the bloke a chance to start again without being jacked up by the dark side.

And, since he never actually had to overcome the dark side, the way Vader did, it's no great surprise he ended up going bonkers again. You can chalk it up to torture if you want but it'd have probably happened anyway.

 

After we had adult Revan and dead but still kicking Revan... can we get a KOTOR Prequel about Revans youth? The Young Revan Chronicles? Ok, this probably will feel like Zayne Carrick... should feel like it, but anyway. I kinda see a proper NJO onwards type storytelling but in the pre-KOTOR era using YOUNG Revan. We have it all, hidden Sith threats, an invasion by Mandalorians instead of Vong. Shaky republic politics and a divided Jedi Order with secret groups around within and around it.

Seeing Revan's rise as a Padawan, and fall as a Master later despite knowing their fates should be interesting. Sometimes it feels like the post NJO actually was this story but in the wrong era.

 

@AusStig

Something i thought about (And I'm not sure if this could be it's own thread too or work here) is....Redapting the story as well as the character.

Again look at Thrawn.

While we don't really know what role he's gonna play in the Mandoverse (Or mainly the Ashoka show) so far it seems to be he is once again playing the role of Imperial Warlord leading the Remnants of the Empire against the New Republic in secret until he is ready.

So i gets we can ask.....What characters are easy enough to transfer....as well as somewhat adapt their arc.

Since it seems Mandoverse is gonna be a loose adaption of Heir to the Empire in some capacity.

 

So here is a question.

If (in a hypothetical future reboot) Palpatine doesn't return from the dead is he still Palpatine? This is something he his famous for in canon and legends, so is it essential?

@Jid123Sheeve

Well I think it depends on how wedded that character is to the Story. You can have a non-Thrawn imperial warlord, but if you have Thrawn as a warlord does that make it HttE, even though it might lack all other aspects of the book? (Mara, C'abouth[sp], etc).

 

I'm not sure if that is a response to my post or not...But i mean....No i don't think so.

But then again is Thrawn being a post Empire warlord essential to his character? Could he have technically after ROTJ joined the Resistance?

Edit: Lol...Just saw your addition ...lol

I mean in some ways yes....Like is Civil War the movie really based on Civil War the comic even though it lacks all the other essentials.

 

ok, then why? Why is this famous event not essential to Palpatines Character?

As to Thrawn well it depends on how you define his character, in my view no, because he is loyal to the fascist ideals of the Empire, some other might say yes if there is a bigger threat they need to fight.

Adaptations often work in degrees, Civil War is similar (about registration) but very different in others (the ending, no supervillains recruited by Ironman, Spider-Man stays loyal to him). So these things are rarely absolutes.

 

Because a famous even is not a essential event to his character.

If Palpatine died then that's it ...his story is pretty complete...him returning in a Clone Body isn't essential so much as it's just a extra ting to be added on...But it's not a essential event. A essential even is something defining about the character that is needed to make the character the character.

Outside Star Wars

A essential even that is needed for Batman, the death of his parents

A FAMOUS event that is not needed in Batman's lore...The killing joke.

True but Thrawn might grow in a new way that he no longer believe in those ideals after say ...The event of Rebels....It might be a hard sell but I don't think you can have Thrawn go through a redemption arc if one wanted too...I don't think anything is blocking it.

 

It boils down to expectations, that’s how I gauge it.

When they brought Thrawn back into Canon, the first thing everyone asked was if he’d survive Rebels and if they’d use him post-RotJ.

Because that’s what he’s known for, that particular story of him being the big Imperial Warlord who almost destroyed the New Republic after Vader and Palpatine had fallen.

It’s like how, when it was announced that the villains of The Dark Knight Rises were Bane and Catwoman. We knew next to nothing about the plot of the film, but people naturally assumed that because Bane was in it that it would be some adaptation of Knightfall. Sometimes the iconic story and the character are linked, even if you can use the character in other ways.

 

I would say the same thing about Palpatines return. It shows his planning and his power. That he isn't just a dictator or an evil space wizard, he is something, more.

But as @SyndicThrass says bane and knightfall are linked. Even if only elements of them.

You, yourself just said Thrawn being a warlord makes it htte even though a lot of things are very different.

To me if Thrawn grows and is redeemed he is no longer Thrawn. If Thrawn is a good guy he isn't Thrawn. To me Thrawn is a die-hard racist imperial, who cares nothing about rules of war, smart but no morality, only pragmatism, to keep the Empire in power.

 

I would argue that there’s no way—because Thrawn is not the heir to the empire, at least not from my reading of the trilogy. That title belongs to Jacen and Jaina.

 

@AusStig

So would you consider Thrawn as he appears in Zahn's new books to essentially be a new character who superficially resembles the Grand Admiral?

I think that limiting Thrawn's characterisation to exactly how he was in the EU would be a waste. Heir to the Empire is a great book/trilogy, but he doesn't undergo much change except from living to corpse. Some characters - especially villains - can be 'rebooted' between continuities, I think, otherwise they risk seeming one-note, which would mean they'd be better off left alone. (I don't think Malak would work as is, for example).

The issue is how much wiggle room there is, I suppose.

 

Yes.

Zahn Thrawn has always been it's own thing seperate to everyone else's. Rebels Thrawn is a good reboot. Zahn Thrawn is not. He is superfically like Thrawn (smart, racist), but nothing more. He even has a different motivation for joining the Empire. Which isn't a bad thing, but it completely changes his whole character. Now he isn't loyal to the Empire at all, but the Chiss, while in legends the Chiss kicked him out and he transferred his loyalty to the Empire. So now why would he care about the Empire after it's fall? he likely won't so he isn't the die hard Imperial, which to me goes with his inflexible nature and thinking.

And also it keeps whitewashing him, something I don't like (also thrawn alliances does Anakin dirty).

 

@AusStig

idk if I go that far dude if She-Ra taught me anything is that you can change quite a bit and even have villain characters get redemption but still stay true to the essence of the character

heck even Megaton got a redemption arc in the comic

so I’m someone who says you can a characters story in very different places and still stay true to a characters essence and evolve them

 

So we have TINO to add to JINO and RevINO then.

If we took Thrawn as the blueprint (no pun intended) for a Legends to Canon transfer, I don't think I'd mind that for most other characters I can think of. I find it more refreshing than frustrating. More important to me is consistency within a continuity than between them.

 

There’s no discernible difference between canon Thrawn and Legends Thrawn to me.

Sub Rebels for Heir to the Empire and the newer books for say, Hand of Thrawn or Outbound Flight and it’s the exact same situation. Zahn has always written Thrawn differently than he did in the original villainous role. Canon didn’t change that.

 

Here are the rules for Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote:

What would the rules for Thrawn be?

 

I can't speak to She-Ra.

but Magneto got that 'redemption' because his goal was pretty much the same as the heroes. His goal didn't change, circumstances just brought him into alignment with the heroes.

Look at X-men 2.

@VexedAtVohai to me TINO is when ever Zahn writes him after TT.

 

Well then I feel that doesn't really change a character than if their story is different than it was previously.

So long as Thrawn started out as the Strategist Authoritarian who uses art to take on his enemies, than even if you have a arch were he realizes those fascistic tendencies are wrong and he gets "Redeemed" than it still Thrawn...Just Thrawn who goes on a different journey than the one in Legends.

 

To me that arc would make him not Thrawn. Like if the Red Skull realised nazim is wrong he isn't the red skull.