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

I feel like the difference there is Red Skull is defined by Nazism.

(Although we do have a few other Red Skulls like a communist Red Skull but that's another discussion)

Thrawn might be a authoritarian but I don't think that's his most definitive trait...It's one of them...and being a bad guy is fun...but I feel like Thrawn is a bit more worldly enough that a arc like that COULD make him Thrawn.

Heck I think there is a reboot out their that could give Palpatine a redemption arc....I don't know how would be done but i'm not gonna close the door on it.

Although at that point i guess this is were the more subjective "were do you draw the line" aspect comes into play.

 

The Red Skull has realised that nazism is wrong. Or at least, the modern iteration has realised that nazism is an outdated belief system that was holding him back and went on to use other political ideologies to serve his ends.

 

Ah...Gotcha.

But i think though the question is more....was he redeemed or is trying to be a "Good person" which I don't think the comics or any iteration has taken the character....Yet? (I mean maybe one day since you know...Comics)

 

I mean comic book characters have been around for 80 years so they will have gone through a lot of changes. Pretty much anything you can imagine.

If we look at Harry Potter say, if Lucus Malfoy realises racism is wrong is he still Lucus?

 

Honestly...Yes...Because he still once believed in racism...and plus we don't know what happened to him after Book 7 and his life with Voldermort went down hill. So yeah...he could have changed.

 

Ok, so character growth can be a thing.

But in an adaption where Lucus was never racist and was really just after the elder wand or loyal to Voldermort due to his blood line.

 

No...Then he's not the character.

For me ...Essence of a character is where they START not where they END.

I'll use my She-Ra example

Catra starts off as Jealous enemy of She-Ra like in the movie

and Hordak starts off as "Dark Lord of the Etheria Horde"

that is where they start and thus they are true to their character

however where they end up is different

(She-Ra spoilers)

Spoiler

Catra redeems herself and declares her love for Adora

Hordak stands up to Horde Prime and realizes he can be his own indvivudal while saving his love Entrapta

Again i think it's more important where a characters STARTS...to where they finish that defines the essence of a character..

 

You have to remember, those particular comics were created in the 1930s.

The comics have changed and those characters have grown so that Cap is no longer a piece of American propaganda and the Red Skull is no longer the personification of Nazi ideology. They’re still ultimately the hero and villain, but they’ve outgrown the concepts they were created for.

Regardless, Thrawn’s an inappropriate comparison to this situation. Do I think ultimately his story should play out in canon like it did in Legends? Yes, because to me the most iconic version of the character. He’s Grand Admiral Thrawn. But I also have no issue with Zahn and Lucasfilm having stories where Thrawn is the protagonist.

 

I mean I want it to for the iconic reasons

BUT

If they did want Thrawn to have a redemption arc and not be "The Grand Admiral" Warlord of the Post ROTJ era and do something different I think that's fine and doesn't change the character ...It just gives him a different journey at the end of the day.

 

Where they start in-universe or their first appearance? Is the Chiss Ascendancy even mentioned in the Thrawn Trilogy?

 

In-Universe.

Although I guess first appearance since most stories are linear.

(I honestly don't get the question though)

 

Thrawn first appears in the Thrawn Trilogy, but that's the end of his in-universe story. He is only fleshed out in later stories set earlier

 

It sounds to me like the difference is between a prequel and a first appearance.

Lets look at Vader. He first appears in ANH but in universe we meet him in TPM.

 

I mean i guess Star Wars is a weirder situation since we jump timelines all the time.

When I mean first appearance I mean in THEIR STORY!

So i guess....First Appearance then.

With something like She-Ra it's different since well...It's a linear narrative with a beginning middle and a end.

 

Comics and anime do stuff like Star Wars though. She-Ra is unusual if we start with them as kids.

Often backstory comes later in flashbacks.

 

Well yes...I agree. However MOVING FORWARD does doing certain things change their characters

In legends Thrawn first appearance ...He died.

Had Thrawn lived and gotten a redemption arc...would that have changed the character...I say no!

In Canon we have a opporuntiy where Thrawn appeared and DID NOT DIE....So (Even if they don't do this which they probably wont) they wanted to give Thrawn a redemption arc...In my mind that DOES NOT change the character as we know him, it just gives him a different arc.

 

Well, I think (and to get this thread back on track because we’ve veered off from the original concept some) bringing a Legends character over to canon, I think for the most part it’s kind of an adaptation or retelling the classic story in the new canon.

Like, to use Thrawn as the example, I think they brought him back very specifically in Rebels to eventually be able to tell the Heir to the Empire story at some point. The novels, the other canon references in the comics and games etc I think that’s all just a nice bonus for LFL.

I don’t think they’ll bring these characters over to rewrite them or their overall arc.

 

That's where the 'Legends' label comes in. Quinlan Vos might seem very different than in the EU, but he broadly did the same stuff

 

I mean they won’t and that is probably policy. But I don think it’s against character if they did.

Ventress in TCW is a better example of what you speak in my mind

 

I think they brought him in as he is a well known imperial character, I don't think they indented to do htte.

So as more is added to the story then more aspects are added. To adapt this Thrawn, you would have two Thrawn one pre and one post redemption.

Ture, but the arc and character are very different. he lacks the family connection and his enemies among Dookus followers.

So you think they got the key elements? Any ideas what his rules would be?

Also what about Bariss, since she is MASSIVELY different, same with Depa.

 

Zahn has outright said, when Filoni first sat him down at LFL he told him that they intended to keep Thrawn alive post-Rebels for further use.

Plus Filoni has spoken before that he loved Heir to the Empire and that it was a formative part of his Star Wars experience. They were always going to get to that story once they brought him back.

 

TCW is messy.

If we pretend it's only canon for a moment, I think Season 5 Barriss is an example of how not to bring in a character from Legends, as they basically decided to do their own thing entirely with her. She is only the bomber because she made friends with Ahsoka three seasons earlier. It wasn't a natural choice made with regard to her character.

When talking about pre-existing movie characters, I don't think the writers should be beholden to their EU stories, but Barriss does a total 180 in TCW with little justification in between.

 

I don't think see at Two Thrawns though I see it as the same character just evolving over time as the story progresses.

 

I didn't know that.

Disappointing.

Let us say it is only canon, since it isn't really legends and it is an adaption of characters.

I think Bariss in TCW very much BINO. She is way younger than in legends, she also has a different skill set and personality even before the bombing.

 

And I don't mind that, if it's firmly in a separate continuity. She's not a Legends character to me so much as a movie extra who had a story in Legends books. Season 2 Barriss is fine by me in canon.

With Durge, Darth Krayt or K'kruhk, for example, the only creative starting point is the Legends stories.