StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Guardsman Bass wrote:They'll want to do something that lets them show space battles and lightsaber action, especially since they're now heavily focused on selling it to a broader international audience. I'm not sure how much room that leaves for more politically interesting Star Wars stories, or whether the fans will want it (flack was direct at the prequels for not having the whole "obvious black hat villain" thing that the OT had).

My guess is that we'll get a "coming of age Jedi" story, with a kid from one of the main characters.

I thought the villains were pretty obvious in the Prequels.

You're probably right about what kind of story it'll be. Probably starring Han and Leia's child, with Luke as the wise old Jedi mentor (this fits with including the original actors).

However, they could work a political sub-plot in if they wish, since this scenario will almost inevitably mean Han and Leia are also significant characters, and if they follow the EU (or even if they don't) its likely Leia will have some sort of political position. Unless they have Leia leave politics to become a Jedi.

How the hell did the prequels NOT have an obvious black hat villain? Even if we allow for some sod under a rock somewhere not knowing that Palpatine would wind up the Emperor, Maul, Dooku and Grieveous seemed pretty damned villainous to me.

The Romulan Republic wrote:A rebel army might be informal to a degree, but it would probably become less so once its established a government.

Right. And it's a very difficult transition period. The rebels would be taking over the imperial bureaucracy as new management while still needing to maintain the old hands to keep the machinery of empire running. It's the same problem the Allies faced with de-nazifying Germany after WWII. And the rough and tumble and informality of wartime would need to give way to a more formal and systematic way of doing things. The imperial apparatus, having been created from the republic, would need to be brought back to benign use. This is both civil service and military.

Seeing some less evil Imperials is well and fine, but I'm worried about going too far down the flawed corrupt New Republic route the EU evidently took a lot of the time. Cynical Star Wars should not be.

Right, exactly what I said. Star Wars is not grimdark. If the Republic goes wrong, it's going to be distinct bad guys who do it and is redeemed by good guys. The heroes becoming the monsters is not a Star Wars theme, barring certain interpretations on how Anakin's arc was supposed to go. What we saw in the perquels was a hot mess but, if executed correctly, it could have been a cautionary tale of how a good man can go wrong seemingly with the best of intentions, the seductive power of evil being that it doesn't seem evil when you choose it. If Anakin could fall, are any of us safe?

Batman wrote:How the hell did the prequels NOT have an obvious black hat villain? Even if we allow for some sod under a rock somewhere not knowing that Palpatine would wind up the Emperor, Maul, Dooku and Grieveous seemed pretty damned villainous to me.

I didn't understand when confusion was expressed about who Sidious was. There were some fans who insisted Sidious was unconnected with Palpatine. Don't ask, I can't explain. Makes no sense.

jollyreaper wrote:

Batman wrote:How the hell did the prequels NOT have an obvious black hat villain? Even if we allow for some sod under a rock somewhere not knowing that Palpatine would wind up the Emperor, Maul, Dooku and Grieveous seemed pretty damned villainous to me.

I didn't understand when confusion was expressed about who Sidious was. There were some fans who insisted Sidious was unconnected with Palpatine. Don't ask, I can't explain. Makes no sense.

I can understand it when children miss it - Iam McDiarmid was such a sweet, lovable, caring old uncle as Palpatine the politician that it's no wonder younger kids would not connect him to the shadowy and sinister figure of Lord Sidious. And maybe adults really, really wanted to think that Lucas would pull a fast one and reveal some nefarious business with clones or identical twins or that Sidious was a completely unrelated to Palpatine etc. Maybe they were pining for Star Trek: Nemesis.

I'd have bought if if they'd just given Palpatine a pair of glasses. With, lovable Palpy. Without, gasp! Darth Naughtypants! Who knew?!

At least his tough guy voice was more convincing than Bale's Bat Voice.

Batman wrote:How the hell did the prequels NOT have an obvious black hat villain? Even if we allow for some sod under a rock somewhere not knowing that Palpatine would wind up the Emperor, Maul, Dooku and Grieveous seemed pretty damned villainous to me.

Mike Stoklassa (Red Letter Moron) and his numerous admirers had a difficult time with the "complexity" of the plot in the prequels, so it should come as no surprise that there are people so stupid that they can't spot the villains.

I think what people are trying to say, is that each individual movie had it's own clear villain, with Palpatine/Sideous remaining hidden behind the scenes. As a result, the villains that the heroes actually confront receive too little development as characters, and that the trilogy would've been better off if there had been a clear Dragon-type villain throughout all three like Vader was in the OT.

Vader wasn't for the OT either. ANH had Vader as essentially an assistant to Tarkin, and ROTJ had Palpy as the main villain. ESB was the only one in which Vader clearly was the top notch bad guy.

I wouldn't say Vader was an assistant to Tarkin. He arguably had less power, since he deferred to Tarkin's order not to choke a subordinate, though the way he phrased it ("As you wish.", as I recall) suggests it was a choice. However, he had the more impressive presence in the film, so he seems like the main villain even if he isn't.

Don't forget Leia's comment about Tarkin "holding Vader's leash."

That's a good point.

Good points. Remember that Palpatine was not a force user in the first draft and south has not yet been properly defines. The emperor in the first draft was more like a dumber version of Hirohito, a figurehead easily manipulated with the real power in the hands of ambitious bureaucrats. An evil emperor acting on his own accord did not come about until empire.

In iv, vader's closest parallel would be the amoral or outright evil mystic warrior working for the evil businessman. The hero and this top henchman both have a personal history and the henchman may be the hero's primary antagonist while the businessman would be the the main antagonist for everyone else. Wants to bulldoze the village to put up a mall or something so naturally a evil ninja is his first hire.

It's interesting to see how different the empire feels between those two interpretations, historical forces allowing bad people to rise and exploit the situation and make things worse for personal gain versus a master manipulator who seems to have constructed half the historical forces for personal gain. It's like if Napoleon had never lived then surely someone else would have tried to seize the same opportunity be did. Could anyone else have done as much damage and made such a mark? Butting up against the great man theory of history here.