Tweet
Who says he needs to play a Sith? If anything, he looks like a pretty intriguing Thrawn.
-
Well, he could be Thrawn or some other non-sith villain, but the new trilogy DOEs need to have the Sith as its ultimate antagonists. It's really not Star Wars without a villain with a red light saber for the hero to face off against.
Comment
-
But...but...he brought balance to the Force! And somehow that was supposed to mean getting rid of all the Darkside folks! You wouldn't want to undo that genius bit of prophecy?!?Originally posted by Big Daddy Dave View Post
Ah well, they can always go back in and change it afterward so that the Prophecy is of the "One who will bring Balance to the Force for a few years". That would be more in keeping with the EU, anyway.
Comment
-
Bah...like that would ever be the end of the Sith. I take it as balance meaning the Sith aren't running the goddamn galaxy anymore; they'll always be a threat for the Jedi to fend off.Comment
-
Yep. He could be like a more threatening Tarkin with a meatier role.Originally posted by JohnnyV View Post
That's how I always took it to mean. You can't have good without evil, and so on.Plus, doesn't balance mean both forces are as one? Can't have balance if there's only one version of the force.Comment
-
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Yet I could have sworn that the official stance (from Lucas) was that it meant eliminating the Dark Side. He could have flip-flopped on that of course. Wouldn't be the first time that his stance on something changed (often with no acknowledgement that it had EVER been any different).Originally posted by JohnnyV View PostComment
-
On the other hand, the Jedi OBVIOUSLY didn't take it to mean that, or they wouldn't have seen the fulfilling of the prophecy as something to look forward to...Originally posted by Big Daddy Dave View PostComment
-
Well, we saw in the prequel trilogy that the Jedi weren't exactly the sharpest crayons in the box.Originally posted by Mister Ed View PostComment
-
True enough, and that was one of the more disappointing aspects, for me.Originally posted by Big Daddy Dave View PostComment
-
Lucas has definitely said that and it is his (and hence the) official stance on that prophecy, but it makes total sense if you just think of it the right way. Balance isn't good and evil equal. The Sith abuse and misuse the force to their own benefit therefore even one Sith means there is an imbalance in the force. The force is balanced when all things are in harmony. Think of it as a clean water source. Bringing natural balance doesn't mean you have to have an equal number of people polluting it as you do using it properly. Anakin/Vader brought balance when he removed the Sith imbalance.Originally posted by Mister Ed View PostLast edited by Space Cop; 02-28-2014, 03:32 AM.Comment
-
Well, I would have used the term purity or peace or something similar, rather than balance, for that, personally, just because the implication of balancing the two sides of the force leaps so readily to mind (especially given what we know happens to the Jedi). The way they handled it, kind of understandably IMHO, left a lot of people with the impression that the prophecy really meant decimating the Jedi so that their ranks matched those of the Sith, and that the Jedi were simply wrong in their interpretation of it. Though as you demonstrate a case CAN be made for the official interpretation (as Ben would say, "from a certain point of view"), nothing on screen in the films did much to convince the viewer of it, I feel.Originally posted by Space Cop View PostComment
-
I would agree with that. It would've been nice perhaps if when Kenobi was mentioning it to Skywalker he said "and this is how you bring balance ..."Originally posted by Mister Ed View Post
On the other hand, nothing was actually stated in the movies that balance would be 2 Jedi and 2 Sith. Even Palpantine never says that (and you'd think he would even if it is a lie). It's just, as you say, our assumption (probably largely due to basic concepts like the yin-yang in Zen Buddhism).
Of course, "balance" is such a relative term. If someone just told you "I'm going to bring balance to politics," your mind might go in a dozen directions if there is no context.
Edit: I think part of the problem is also perspective over six movies. For most of us over 20 Star Wars was the original trilogy and that seemed to be more or less Luke's story. Lucas, however, has stated that his grand vision was always the fall and redemption of Anakin/Vader. If they had been presented in order and in that way, maybe people would've gotten to the end of 3 and naturally assumed "oh well, the prophecy isn't fulfilled yet because Anakin's story is only half done."Last edited by Space Cop; 02-28-2014, 04:09 AM.Comment
-
Well, plus, having seen the original trilogy first, and hearing about a prophecy about Anakin bringing balance to the force, we have the advance knowledge that he's going to help kill all the Jedi, leaving only (at least as far as the movies are concerned) Obi Wan and Yoda. If we didn't have that foreknowledge, our minds likely wouldn't be so fast to leap to the idea that the Jedi are missing the obvious, and "balance" means two of each. With that knowledge, though, the tendency is to see that sort of balance played out, and not look any further for some other explanation.Originally posted by Space Cop View PostComment
-
Comment