Joek3rr
Master Member
Revenge of the Sith?
If not that, then The Clone Wars. Have you seen the Witches of Dathomir? And some of the arcane stuff Palpatine and Dooku perform?
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
If not that, then The Clone Wars. Have you seen the Witches of Dathomir? And some of the arcane stuff Palpatine and Dooku perform?
I must admit that I am blissfully ignorant of these non-cinematic events and character actions; however, the Witches of Darthomir do make me chuckle, and I haven’t even seen them.
In my mind's eye, I picture...
Last edited:
HMSwolfe
Master Member
You know, Star Wars is like a big buffet. There’s a lot there. Some people might go for some stuff, and some people go for others.
And some people pull out a big blender and throw EVERYTHING in the buffet in, blend it up, and start chugging while making full eye contact with everyone else, and then get mad when no one else wants to “enjoy” the buffet the same way they do.
And some people pull out a big blender and throw EVERYTHING in the buffet in, blend it up, and start chugging while making full eye contact with everyone else, and then get mad when no one else wants to “enjoy” the buffet the same way they do.
sztriki
Sr Member
I heard it before. Here:
This completely contradicts your previous post where you brought up the clones (programmed to do what Palps wants with a chip in their heads) as similar to Snoke.
Last edited:
robn1
Master Member
The only time SJP was the pretty one.
Brand loyalty is not a virtue, it's a choice. Equating unconditional love with a product makes about as much sense as being in love with your couch because you like to sit on it. While there is nothing inherently wrong with enjoying art, pledging your undying devotion to it is not something anyone should be proud of, nor should you demand the same of others.
Last edited:
HMSwolfe
Master Member
Companies like Disney and Apple thrive off of brand loyalty. It allows them to avoid accountability towards their consumers because they know they’ll just take whatever abuse comes their way. In any normal situation, they’d have to answer for the merit of their products, but if their audience has convinced themselves they can do no wrong, they’ve won. They’ve established faux monopolies with their core audiences.
Joek3rr
Master Member
It's to show precedent. This isn't a new concept for Palpatine. And prior to Order 66 those clones are free willed individuals that all have their own hopes, fears and desires.
Snoke could have been created with his purpose, the desire to control the galaxy and destroy Skywalker family and Luke's Jedi. He still has free will, but those goals and actions are clearly what Palpatine wants. Or could have been made to be highly susceptible to suggestion and persuasion from Palpatine. Palpatine simply nudges and suggests things to Snoke through the Force.(I suggest this because the same book states that Ben Solo and Snoke were being manipulated, but were unaware.)
CT1138
Sr Member
In fact, I'd go a step further and saying that this is in fact how cloning technology works in SW, going as far back as pre-PT EU lore. Clones inherently have their own personality and desires unless an external will (Kaminoan techno-chips, Palpatine, etc) acts upon them.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
Lol Star Wars may be one of the, if not the, worst franchises to discuss when delving into the concept of free will.
There are 3 possible outcomes of who has free will:
1) everything has free will (droids, organ is, everything).
2) only unaltered beings have free will (only people who are born organically and unaltered)
3) no one has free will
Given the fact that destiny is such a central theme in Star Wars as well as the will of the force, it is actually quite easy to argue for the third interpretation.
This has been debated to death, but just to touch on it yet again you have to consider the context to which characters refer to destiny and then weigh that with the actual outcome of the scenario they are referring to.
For example, Vader says to Luke it's his destiny to join him and overthrow the Emperor and they can rule the galaxy as father and son. We all know that never happens. So when he is saying it's destiny, he's merely expressing his hope for the future. It doesn't mean it's set in stone and therefore can't be destined because it never comes to pass. If it was destined it would have happened. Characters in this series (especially Jedi and Sith) often use these terms as a means to express their hopes or beliefs but it's clear from the outcomes of a lot of these scenarios that they don't always play out the way they believe it will.
From a writing perspective Star Wars is very messy when it comes to destiny and prophecy often making it difficult to create solid rules for the series to run on. They are a bit too malleable and change with the demands of the plot. Narratively a story will evolve over time but there should be a throughline or framework that informs it. I think it's a mistake to view this series (or any fantasy story for that matter) as being great because you can do anything because why not it's all fake anyway when you need to adhere to the basic rules of fiction if it's going to work. Structure doesn't have to be limiting if you are talented enough to find the limitless possibilites within in it.
Which is why you can easily go down rabbit holes forever trying to prove one point or another when it's just a convoluted mess. I think the best metrics to gauge this series are to try and look at each trilogy as it's own contained story. While the intention is to link them all together into one cohesive grand saga you run into a lot of trouble. Which is the very reason why I am am always arguing that as a whole the saga is pretty messy. As self contained trilogies they mostly work (the ST being the exception) but given the oversight by so many different people with so many different perspectives over the course of 40 years where film making and audience tastes have changed, you're going to run into conflicting ideas.
For example, Vader says to Luke it's his destiny to join him and overthrow the Emperor and they can rule the galaxy as father and son. We all know that never happens. So when he is saying it's destiny, he's merely expressing his hope for the future. It doesn't mean it's set in stone and therefore can't be destined because it never comes to pass. If it was destined it would have happened. Characters in this series (especially Jedi and Sith) often use these terms as a means to express their hopes or beliefs but it's clear from the outcomes of a lot of these scenarios that they don't always play out the way they believe it will.
From a writing perspective Star Wars is very messy when it comes to destiny and prophecy often making it difficult to create solid rules for the series to run on. They are a bit too malleable and change with the demands of the plot. Narratively a story will evolve over time but there should be a throughline or framework that informs it. I think it's a mistake to view this series (or any fantasy story for that matter) as being great because you can do anything because why not it's all fake anyway when you need to adhere to the basic rules of fiction if it's going to work. Structure doesn't have to be limiting if you are talented enough to find the limitless possibilites within in it.
Which is why you can easily go down rabbit holes forever trying to prove one point or another when it's just a convoluted mess. I think the best metrics to gauge this series are to try and look at each trilogy as it's own contained story. While the intention is to link them all together into one cohesive grand saga you run into a lot of trouble. Which is the very reason why I am am always arguing that as a whole the saga is pretty messy. As self contained trilogies they mostly work (the ST being the exception) but given the oversight by so many different people with so many different perspectives over the course of 40 years where film making and audience tastes have changed, you're going to run into conflicting ideas.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
I agree that the term “destiny” is thrown around a little bit willy nilly and is more “guidelines” rather than firm rules.
I really don’t want to delve into a philosophical discussion which is why I didn’t go into detail but by destiny here, I’m meaning “the will of the force”. There is a theme of people inevitably acting because the force wills it and although force isn’t god, it can be seen as a constraint on people that unintentionally moves them toward a specific endgame whether they want it or not. Thus, we could argue that because everyone is guided by the force, there is no “free will” if you take that definition, merely limited will in the small actions we take that have minimal consequence.
But again, I agree that Star Wars is messy as is and personality is by no means a sufficient condition to state if something has free will or not. Droids repeatedly have shown to have distinct personalities, arguably more than clone troopers who can be seen to be more different possiblifies of Jango Fett has he grown up in different circumstances, the “different” personalities stemming from different experiences rather than any innate will or uniqueness.
Again, cutting through this jungle of discussion would be incredibly difficult and I don’t think we should go there.
Last edited:
I hadn't even considered the Droid aspect either. That brings up an entirely new angle though it was better developed by Data in Star Trek and all the moral issues surrounding artificial intelligence.
By and large though I'd say it's a stretch to argue that the three trilogies are a totally cohesive story. In the very broadest strokes it is but if we're going to have an honest discussion about how the 9 part saga works as defined by the basic rules of movie making/ and fiction (a metric that no one can reasonably argue against because we're not talking about art house cinema) then it's a mess.
A common complaint with many books and movies is the deus ex machina which robs the characters of any true agency in the story and Star Wars has certainly been guilty of it when it comes to certain plot aspects, the clones, the living force vs, the force, midichlorians. Does the force have a will, and destiny and the list goes on and on.
If you view each trilogy separately perhaps these ideas work but viewed in context to the whole there are glaring contradictions.
By and large though I'd say it's a stretch to argue that the three trilogies are a totally cohesive story. In the very broadest strokes it is but if we're going to have an honest discussion about how the 9 part saga works as defined by the basic rules of movie making/ and fiction (a metric that no one can reasonably argue against because we're not talking about art house cinema) then it's a mess.
A common complaint with many books and movies is the deus ex machina which robs the characters of any true agency in the story and Star Wars has certainly been guilty of it when it comes to certain plot aspects, the clones, the living force vs, the force, midichlorians. Does the force have a will, and destiny and the list goes on and on.
If you view each trilogy separately perhaps these ideas work but viewed in context to the whole there are glaring contradictions.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
Given that Lucas’ rumored treatment for the sequel trilogy was to delve into the world of midiclorians, I think Lucas was planning to explore the concept of the Force and what “the will of the force” actually is.
Problem is given how poorly midiclorians were received in PT, Disney was probably scared that they had a bomb on their hands and ordered rewrites, hence why we got TFA. You can’t argue that it is one of the “safest” Star Wars entries. Basically cool scenes, callbacks to the OT, and a simple story with no controversial concepts that carries audience interest in the sequels using mystery boxes. It worked for Lost at the beginning.
Problem is given how poorly midiclorians were received in PT, Disney was probably scared that they had a bomb on their hands and ordered rewrites, hence why we got TFA. You can’t argue that it is one of the “safest” Star Wars entries. Basically cool scenes, callbacks to the OT, and a simple story with no controversial concepts that carries audience interest in the sequels using mystery boxes. It worked for Lost at the beginning.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
The film works fine as the first of a trilogy. Not great, not ANH, but enough potential to lead to better films.
And then it didn’t.
Now the film falls flat, the viewer being aware of exactly how the “potential” of the film ended up being used by the end.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
I agree. It’s not a standout film and on its own, it’s pretty mediocre but for the start of a trilogy, it builds a lot of hype. JJ is great at building hype and stringing along the viewer by placing mystery boxes. It’s arguably bad storytelling because the story is then truly dependent on how good the mystery box is (and JJ sucks at revealing the containers) but to get a good box office number and get people invested in the sequel, it worked.
And then TLJ happened.
Yes and yes.
In my humble opinion, once the original creator is no longer involved then nothing from that point on is canon. I'm not including anything comic book related since that's a bit of a different animal.
Similar threads
