I don't know about the main point, but I wanted to chime in to say that kicking a puppy is worth way more than 2 ds points.

....actually now that I think of it Luke going straight up dark side would really ruin the OT imo. I hope they don't do that.

On 2017-04-17 at 3:20 AM, Shadow345 said:

If Luke turned to the darkside and wanted to wipe out the Jedi and bring peace to the galaxy. Rey will follow. Kylo then turns to the lightside to defeat them.

It's the only twist that would shake up the staleness of Star Wars and stop rehashed stories.

So far it looks like it's already been saved. Force Awaken was amazing for many fans, myself included. And Rogue One was also a great movie.

Save Star Wars. Save the dream.

11 hours ago, Dosiere said:

I don't know about the main point, but I wanted to chime in to say that kicking a puppy is worth way more than 2 ds points.

....actually now that I think of it Luke going straight up dark side would really ruin the OT imo. I hope they don't do that.

At some point a writer out of ideas always goes the "kill your darlings" route without appreciating that there's more to that than simply getting attention by destroying something someone else loves. That said, I trust Disney is smarter than that. They've barely taken the dealer plates off their shiny new IP after all.

36 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

At some point a writer out of ideas always goes the "kill your darlings" route without appreciating that there's more to that than simply getting attention by destroying something someone else loves. That said, I trust Disney is smarter than that. They've barely taken the dealer plates off their shiny new IP after all.

That's not what "kill your darlings" means. Killing your darlings is removing scenes/plot points/whatevers that you have grown attached to, but that aren't adding to the quality of the book/movie.

Killing your darlings is: removing the first Biggs/Luke scene from ANH because it didn't do anything to advance the plot.

Killing your darlings is not: Kylo killing Han in service to the story.

16 hours ago, Frimmel said:

Not buying that and will be really disappointed if they go there with this. The Sith are evil not misunderstood. The Jedi don't keep this wheel spinning. See the Sith code:

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

Their passions are what matter. If peace is a lie why do they need to gain power? Theirs is the "might makes right" philosophy the tyranny of evil men not the "might for right" of the knights (Jedi Knights ) of the Round Table. The idea you suggest here that the Jedi are culpable for the evil of the Sith is like the nonsense about Batman being the cause of the evil done by his rogue's gallery.

Evil will cease to exist if good stops fighting it?

One can also look at it from a different perspective:

First of all, how many Sith have been fallen Jedi? Quite a few (including important antagonists of all 3 series so far: Dooku, Anakin Skywalker and Ben Solo). Would theyhave turned Sith and/or been as strong had they not been Jedi first? By taking every Force Sensitive child and training them, the Jedi are also greatly increasing the pool of potential recruits for the Sith.

Secondly, the Jedi are rather unnatural in the sense that they reject some of the fundamental aspects of every living being (there is no emotion). Push somebody too far and he might break, falling to the other extreme.

It's not impossible for Luke to consider that the way forward is a less rigid,more human organizaetion of Force users.

28 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

One can also look at it from a different perspective:

First of all, how many Sith have been fallen Jedi? Quite a few (including important antagonists of all 3 series so far: Dooku, Anakin Skywalker and Ben Solo). Would theyhave turned Sith and/or been as strong had they not been Jedi first? By taking every Force Sensitive child and training them, the Jedi are also greatly increasing the pool of potential recruits for the Sith.

Secondly, the Jedi are rather unnatural in the sense that they reject some of the fundamental aspects of every living being (there is no emotion). Push somebody too far and he might break, falling to the other extreme.

It's not impossible for Luke to consider that the way forward is a less rigid,more human organizaetion of Force users.

Definitely this. I think Qui-gon and his belief in the living force is probably the best representation of how a truly connected force user would view the world. Compassion is an emotion, and IMHO without compassion and empathy, you can't call yourself 'good'.

Neither Sith nor Jedi were 'good guys' They were both just different in their approaches to order, control and individualism.

On 4/17/2017 at 9:02 AM, clanofwolves said:

Kylo was well done until he removed his mask and went angry teen.

When I first saw TFA I thought this too. But the more I thought about it I understood why they let Adam Driver take the bad-ass helmet off, to show exactly that he's young, confused and being torn between the light and dark, I think in episode 8 he will be less angry teen and more angry warrior with a gnarly face scar and much more skill after Snoke has "completed" his training. No one can top Vader tho, even if Kylo gets super vicious in the next two films.

Edit: dont have two threads open at once...

I like Kylo, he is a different villain than Vader. I'd be boring to have him be so simaler.

38 minutes ago, codegnave said:

Edit: dont have two threads open at once...

I like Kylo, he is a different villain than Vader. I'd be boring to have him be so simaler.

Going into the film, I wondered how they could possibly make Kylo anything other than a lame wannabe Vader. I applaud them for owning that problem and doing something interesting with it.

4 hours ago, benbaxter said:

That's not what "kill your darlings" means. Killing your darlings is removing scenes/plot points/whatevers that you have grown attached to, but that aren't adding to the quality of the book/movie.

Killing your darlings is: removing the first Biggs/Luke scene from ANH because it didn't do anything to advance the plot.

Killing your darlings is not: Kylo killing Han in service to the story.

I would love for the Luke with Treadwell/Anchorhead/Biggs scenes be edited into a short film to be played before ANH or better yet Rogue One, to show the state of affairs for your average galactic citizens in the boonies.

1 hour ago, LunarSol said:

Going into the film, I wondered how they could possibly make Kylo anything other than a lame wannabe Vader. I applaud them for owning that problem and doing something interesting with it.

I don't see Ben wanting to be like Granddaddy and not being as good at is a bad thing. Its an interesting character space to explore. Vader has gained such a prominent place in our popular culture, but he has gained an even bigger on in universe. There will always be copycats. It would be nice if Ben grew into a different attitude about his villainy, but even if he doesn't, I still like his character.

1 hour ago, LunarSol said:

Going into the film, I wondered how they could possibly make Kylo anything other than a lame wannabe Vader. I applaud them for owning that problem and doing something interesting with it.

Interesting? How?

Not to sound reductionist but there are plenty of 'essential plots' they could have followed. They could even have flat out plagiarised any of the ancient- early modern plays. Lucas plaigiarised Episode IV from Hidden Fortress, Kurosawa remade Shakespeare plays.

But no, we see on our screens another angry teen. No one likes angry, batshit crazy people: Shia Laboeuf, that guy who created Kony videos, Lindsey Logan, Britney Spears...

Ben's interesting because he's so desperate to stand among the titans of his lineage in an era that no longer needs them. He wants to be as big and mythical as the rest of his family but he doesn't grow up in a time that shapes him that way. Instead his villainy is about trying to create his own self importance and his failings as a villain very much come from a lack of real motivation towards evil.

The point in the film I become sold on the character is when he's punching the bowcaster wound. We've seen his weakness as a villain before; really at no point as clearly as a few moments before when he pathetically kills his father because he thinks it'll make him eviler, despite still being a child who needs daddy's approval. It's the punch though in which we really see a lack of that internal fire and hate; that inability to throw a punch and not flinch at the damage it inflicts upon another. Instead we find someone who needs to make up his own pain to justify being a demon in a world that hasn't shaped him into one.

16 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

Ben's interesting because he's so desperate to stand among the titans of his lineage in an era that no longer needs them. He wants to be as big and mythical as the rest of his family but he doesn't grow up in a time that shapes him that way. Instead his villainy is about trying to create his own self importance and his failings as a villain very much come from a lack of real motivation towards evil.

The point in the film I become sold on the character is when he's punching the bowcaster wound. We've seen his weakness as a villain before; really at no point as clearly as a few moments before when he pathetically kills his father because he thinks it'll make him eviler, despite still being a child who needs daddy's approval. It's the punch though in which we really see a lack of that internal fire and hate; that inability to throw a punch and not flinch at the damage it inflicts upon another. Instead we find someone who needs to make up his own pain to justify being a demon in a world that hasn't shaped him into one.

I don't see the link between fame envy and mass murder. Or daddy issues. Or this inexplicable need to be 'eviller'

I also don't see how it makes him more compelling or interesting as a character.

The vast majority of people who have daddy issues or fame issues don't go batshit crazy kill angry. And no one cares about those who do go murderous and mad. In exhibit b: see virtually everyone who went and joined Isis. No one cares about them or wants to read up about them. Kylo is in that category.

If you're going to have a character kill and rage around you need a pretty good reason for it. Take Jason Todd seeing as I'm on an Arkham Knight roll. He whined, and screamed but, after playing the game with the Joker in your head, you kinda see where he's coming from.

The Hound enjoys killing and murdering people but you spend time with him as a character and pity him. You spend no such time with Kylo.

FWIW, the character I'd compare Kylo closest to is Theon Greyjoy.

And no one particularly likes him. Despite his having a lot more character development that Kylo.

7 minutes ago, Xerandar said:

I don't see the link between fame envy and mass murder. Or daddy issues. Or this inexplicable need to be 'eviller'

I also don't see how it makes him more compelling or interesting as a character.

The vast majority of people who have daddy issues or fame issues don't go batshit crazy kill angry. And no one cares about those who do go murderous and mad. In exhibit b: see virtually everyone who went and joined Isis. No one cares about them or wants to read up about them. Kylo is in that category.

If you're going to have a character kill and rage around you need a pretty good reason for it. Take Jason Todd seeing as I'm on an Arkham Knight roll. He whined, and screamed but, after playing the game with the Joker in your head, you kinda see where he's coming from.

The Hound enjoys killing and murdering people but you spend time with him as a character and pity him. You spend no such time with Kylo.

Oh for sure, but most people with daddy issues don't get indoctrinated in an 'Objectively Evil' mindset and taught black magic.

And sure we dont spend that time with Kylo, but we are only 1/3 of the way through this storyline, so don't count that out. The characters in the OT weren't the characters we know today after the first movie! There is still time! It could fail and he could not be that interesting, but I'm optimistic!

On 4/17/2017 at 4:55 AM, Kentucky Fried Ewok said:

Luke has rejected the dark side twice, having him turn to the dark side now would be the ruin of his character. He has always been and should always be a warrior of light.

If you think about it he is not quite a full light sided character either. Much like his father before his turn he kinda walks the line. Perhaps he has come to the realization that the Jedi of the old order were not so great after all and it is time for that order to end to make the way for something new.

But i agree flat out going to the dark side would be completely against his character.

That may be the case, but whiney, angry characters need a lot to be worthy of sympathy. I struggled to care about Jason Todd and never really cared for Theon Greyjoy, despite his trials and tribulations under Ramsay.

16 minutes ago, Xerandar said:

That may be the case, but whiney, angry characters need a lot to be worthy of sympathy. I struggled to care about Jason Todd and never really cared for Theon Greyjoy, despite his trials and tribulations under Ramsay.

I will say that Theon was handled much better in the books than what I understand of happening in the show. Having an inner monologue is a maaaaajor crutch in making these characters sympathetic. Without it the creators need to do a lot of heavy lifting. Its also easier if they are well written, which I would hazard to say does not apply to most comic books imo.

Would someone please be so kind as to explain to me what was so wrong with the Jedi? This thread reads like, "Yup, Hitler, Napoleon and Ghengis Khan were pretty awful, but Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Jesus were far too rigid in their own ways. We need more 'nuanced' force users."

Do people want heroes or not?

Or is it the whole celibacy thing that turns people off the Jedi? Do they want Jedi to have six weeks paid paternity leave and 'bring your son/daughter to work' days?

53 minutes ago, hismhs said:

Would someone please be so kind as to explain to me what was so wrong with the Jedi? This thread reads like, "Yup, Hitler, Napoleon and Ghengis Khan were pretty awful, but Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Jesus were far too rigid in their own ways. We need more 'nuanced' force users."

Do people want heroes or not?

Or is it the whole celibacy thing that turns people off the Jedi? Do they want Jedi to have six weeks paid paternity leave and 'bring your son/daughter to work' days?

I think it comes from the idea of the Jedi and the Sith being too extremes. When you introduce the idea that balance is best (as Star Wars has many times through many mentionings of "bringing balance to the force"), the two extremes become part of the problem rather than the solution.

I always found the the the purely good or purely evil thing in the prequels a little poorly fleshed out.

One of my fav things about the knights of the old republic games was the grey force users and Jedi outcasts.

6 minutes ago, Stew00m said:

I always found the the the purely good or purely evil thing in the prequels a little poorly fleshed out.

One of my fav things about the knights of the old republic games was the grey force users and Jedi outcasts.

Ah, Jolee Bindo. How I miss thee.