Star Wars VII - The Spoiler Menace

[JonArryn]

Darth Maul was a slave who was raised to be a soldier since childhood.

Dooku didn't really agree with the Jedi Councils point of view and ways so he broke free to try and create a vision of a world that he wanted. And if you wanna go up against the Jedis it's probably better to do it with Sith support than alone. 

There is a deleted scene from episode 2 that explains all this. When Obi-Wan goes to the archives to look for Kamino the librarian comes up and gives some backstory about Dooku, a nice scene that was cut for some reason. So both of those Siths actually have ok backstories, just that they aren't explicitly laid out during the movies. 

[Calibandar]

Darth Maul was a slave who was raised to be a soldier since childhood.

Dooku didn't really agree with the Jedi Councils point of view and ways so he broke free to try and create a vision of a world that he wanted. And if you wanna go up against the Jedis it's probably better to do it with Sith support than alone. 

There is a deleted scene from episode 2 that explains all this. When Obi-Wan goes to the archives to look for Kamino the librarian comes up and gives some backstory about Dooku, a nice scene that was cut for some reason. So both of those Siths actually have ok backstories, just that they aren't explicitly laid out during the movies. 

Maul is easily understood. Dooku, no, not really. I felt in general his character wasn't fleshed out anyway, why did he even turn?

But anyway, I will now search for that scene you mentioned.

Edit: Found it, It is indeed a good scene that explains somewhat about Dooku.

There are several very interesting deleted scenes actually, amazing that they excluded those from film II.

I'll check out the deleted scenes for 1 and 3 as well.

[First of My Name]

On the Sith, I assume that the main advantage they had was a storehouse of information. Although not cannon, we know Darth Bane learned how to make Sith Halicons, and had a number of them.

Do you mean holocrons?

[Bonesy]

For those of you who believe Maul had a clear motivation, would someone explain it to me?

And thanks for the info on Dooku. That's something at least. Why he wasn't on the council is still strange. Was he and resigned? If so, why did the Jedi seem to be unaware of his turn?

[HexMachina]

Darth Maul was a slave who was raised to be a soldier since childhood.

Dooku didn't really agree with the Jedi Councils point of view and ways so he broke free to try and create a vision of a world that he wanted. And if you wanna go up against the Jedis it's probably better to do it with Sith support than alone. 

There is a deleted scene from episode 2 that explains all this. When Obi-Wan goes to the archives to look for Kamino the librarian comes up and gives some backstory about Dooku, a nice scene that was cut for some reason. So both of those Siths actually have ok backstories, just that they aren't explicitly laid out during the movies. 

In the films, it's not that Maul's backstory isn't explicitly laid out - it's that he doesn't have one at all. End of. He just...is. I'm assuming that what you say here is explained in the clone wars or something.

Maul is easily understood. Dooku, no, not really. I felt in general his character wasn't fleshed out anyway, why did he even turn?

But anyway, I will now search for that scene you mentioned.

Edit: Found it, It is indeed a good scene that explains somewhat about Dooku.

There are several very interesting deleted scenes actually, amazing that they excluded those from film II.

I'll check out the deleted scenes for 1 and 3 as well.

There were a few deleted scenes in revenge of the Sith that laid the ground work for the creation of the Rebel Alliance which I think would have been good to include in the end product. It also gave Padme something to do rather than having nearly all of her scenes be of her standing around staring, or mooning after Anakin and so on

[ab aeterno]

For those of you who believe Maul had a clear motivation, would someone explain it to me?

Clearly he was a big fan of the colour red, and wanted a consistent colour scheme.

[ants]

Do you mean holocrons?

Ah, yeah. Those too.

 

Oops.

[JonArryn]

In the films, it's not that Maul's backstory isn't explicitly laid out - it's that he doesn't have one at all. End of. He just...is. I'm assuming that what you say here is explained in the clone wars or something.

There were a few deleted scenes in revenge of the Sith that laid the ground work for the creation of the Rebel Alliance which I think would have been good to include in the end product. It also gave Padme something to do rather than having nearly all of her scenes be of her standing around staring, or mooning after Anakin and so on

Agreed. I'm not trying to defend that, I'm just saying that he had a pretty ok backstory, but you're correct, there's no mention of it in the movies. When you think about it, there's not much exploration of the villain's motivations at all in Star Wars. Even Palpatine with all his screen time, we still don't really know why he wants all that power. But it's probably intentional, since the dark side should be a bit clouded in mystery. As someone pointed out above, there's things the dark side has that makes them have an edge over the light side, even though we don't know exactly what they have all the time. 

For those of you who believe Maul had a clear motivation, would someone explain it to me?

 

And thanks for the info on Dooku. That's something at least. Why he wasn't on the council is still strange. Was he and resigned? If so, why did the Jedi seem to be unaware of his turn?

I'm not saying Maul had a clear motivation. He was more a brainwashed pawn for Palpatine to use, as I said, he was raised to be a solder and probably knew nothing else. He's basically a dagger for the Emperor, and I don't think Maul himself cares much about his own motivations. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Chris Stuckmann gives an in-depth explanation of why those of you complaining that it was too similar to ANH are largely talking a bunch of crap.

[Kindly Old Man]

Chris Stuckmann gives an in-depth explanation of why those of you complaining that it was too similar to ANH are largely talking a bunch of crap.

Someone should tell this guy that the critical and popular response to TFA has been overwhelmingly positive. He really stuck it to that 5% of people though 

[The Anti-Targ]

Chris Stuckmann gives an in-depth explanation of why those of you complaining that it was too similar to ANH are largely talking a bunch of crap.

But the fact of it being very similar to ANH is not the problem, it's they way they executed this deliberate decision to genetically re-engineer ANH. For me it was just not very well done so it's just an OK movie. The fact that the movie was largely predictable once you realised it was a re-telling of ANH means they had to work a lot harder to make the move surprise and delight. Going in I had no idea TFA was a re-telling of ANH, so the fact I came to that realisation all by my lonesome means it's not just a load of bollocks being spread by people who don't like the movie. Everyone I went to see it with and all my friends and family all recognise it as a re-do of ANH and aside from me they all loved it or liked it a lot. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

 

But the fact of it being very similar to ANH is not the problem, it's they way they executed this deliberate decision to genetically re-engineer ANH. For me it was just not very well done so it's just an OK movie. The fact that the movie was largely predictable once you realised it was a re-telling of ANH means they had to work a lot harder to make the move surprise and delight. Going in I had no idea TFA was a re-telling of ANH, so the fact I came to that realisation all by my lonesome means it's not just a load of bollocks being spread by people who don't like the movie. Everyone I went to see it with and all my friends and family all recognise it as a re-do of ANH and aside from me they all loved it or liked it a lot. 

I don't follow. The bolded seem to be contradictory statements. "The fact that it's similar to ANH isn't a problem, but because of this similarity the filmmakers have to work harder." How is the similarity not a problem then?

The video points out that when ESB was released, the reception was lukewarm (presumably there were Tauntaun stomachs to hand...heh) and most critics said it was a little too familiar, which is exactly what the biggest criticism of TFA is.

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't follow. The bolded seem to be contradictory statements. "The fact that it's similar to ANH isn't a problem, but because of this similarity the filmmakers have to work harder." How is the similarity not a problem then?

The video points out that when ESB was released, the reception was lukewarm (presumably there were Tauntaun stomachs to hand...heh) and most critics said it was a little too familiar, which is exactly what the biggest criticism of TFA is.

The intent to make it similar to ANH is merely a film-making challenge. You can call it a problem, but it's a problem from the start for which you work out a solution, it is not necessarily a problem with the final product. The problem with TFA, from my perspective, is that they didn't adequately rise to the challenge of re-telling ANH.

 

[Howdyphillip]

Here is how I read the criticisms of The Force Awakens.

 

 I didn't like A Force Awakens it felt pretty much like ANH  (The best movie ever made.). I mean it starts out with plans being given over to a droid just like ANH (The best movie ever made), It has a desert planet just like ANH (The best movie ever made), and it had a bad guy dressed in black just like ANH (The best movie ever made).

I personally wish it wasn't similar to ANH (The best movie ever made). My ideas would have been so much better.  

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

The intent to make it similar to ANH is merely a film-making challenge. You can call it a problem, but it's a problem from the start for which you work out a solution, it is not necessarily a problem with the final product. The problem with TFA, from my perspective, is that they didn't adequately rise to the challenge of re-telling ANH.

 

Ah I see, though I respectfully disagree. 

ETA:

Here is how I read the criticisms of The Force Awakens.

 

 I didn't like A Force Awakens it felt pretty much like ANH  (The best movie ever made.). I mean it starts out with plans being given over to a droid just like ANH (The best movie ever made), It has a desert planet just like ANH (The best movie ever made), and it had a bad guy dressed in black just like ANH (The best movie ever made).

I personally wish it wasn't similar to ANH (The best movie ever made). My ideas would have been so much better.  

Haha well said.

[The Anti-Targ]

Here is how I read the criticisms of The Force Awakens.

 

 I didn't like A Force Awakens it felt pretty much like ANH  (The best movie ever made.). I mean it starts out with plans being given over to a droid just like ANH (The best movie ever made), It has a desert planet just like ANH (The best movie ever made), and it had a bad guy dressed in black just like ANH (The best movie ever made).

I personally wish it wasn't similar to ANH (The best movie ever made). My ideas would have been so much better.  

Indeed, if the people making the criticism thing ANH is the best movie ever made. Which only mega fans of Star Wars will think, and AFAIK aside from the racist and sexist sub-group of those fans I thought mega fans of Star Wars all love TFA.

Also, just because some re-tells the story of the alleged best movie ever made, it doesn't mean they are going to do a good job of it. It means they have source material that they surely can't screw up. But Hollywood is littered with examples of unscrewupable source material that got screwed up. Legend of Aang for example.

 

Ah I see, though I respectfully disagree. 

 

 

That's all good. I am glad most of my friends and family loved TFA, I'm just sad that I can't quite agree with them on it.

[MerenthaClone]

So I rewatched RotJ recently and noticed something interesting:  Luke sees the SSD when they're trying to land on Endor and senses Vader, and says "Vader's on that ship."  Han's response is "take it easy, there's a lot of command ships".  In other words, everything about SSDs being super-rare ships is something made up from the EU that people have just kind of accepted as fact.  Han's not even fazed by seeing one, whereas in the EU it feels like they often end up as the finale for a long series. Ackbar handles it similarly:  he wants it dead because its a command ship and vulnerable, not because its some existential threat.  And in some ways, I think this is pretty emblematic of what a ton of SW fans seem to have done.  They take a ton of stuff that's elaborated on in the EU and accept it as fact, even though its not in the ongoing canon.  Some elements are accepted by the current canon.  I honestly can't recall whether Lucas named the capital planet Coruscant in some random media before Zahn published Heir to the Empire, but if he didn't, Zahn still was able to make the capital named Coruscant in the movies, too.  But, especially with all of the "that's not how the Force works!" complaints from some fans (eg JonArryn here, but others elsewhere), the proper response is "no, that's not how the Force used to work.  It works differently now, because what you thought isn't canon anymore."  Lucas chose to incorporate the capital name, and if he hadn't, Zahn's name simply would have been overwritten.  What's in TFA is how the Force "works" now, regardless of anything in the EU.  

Hell, even the Rule of Two is suspect, because prior to the EU, the only evidence for it was Yoda's statement at the end of TPM, which could easily be read as saying "there's got to be a master, because you can't have an apprentice without a master by definition" rather than "oh yeah, Sith only come in pairs for whatever reason."  Back to the OT:  when they get buzzed by the TIE before they find the Death Star, they note that it isn't a deep range craft so there has to be a base.  Assuming that there is only one apprentice per master based on Yoda's speech is just as silly as assuming that each DS only carries one TIE.  (note:  it is very possible I am incorrect about the Rule of Two's current canonicity because I frankly had stopped consuming SW by the time anything that is now considered canon was being created because I really, really didn't care about any of the PT characters, so maybe it comes up definitively in something that's current canon).  And even if the Rule of Two was once a hard rule, there's literally nothing that says that Palpatine ever cared about it since iirc the Rule of Two was written hundreds of years before the movies.  

tldr, if it isn't in the current canon, arguing that that isn't "how things work" is, well, utterly pointless even by the standards of scifi fans arguing on the internet.

[Horza]

On that note, here's a nice little read about Star Wars canon, based on a 1979 attempt to puzzle out the SW universe using only ANH: http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/canon.html

[Jon AS]

tldr, if it isn't in the current canon, arguing that that isn't "how things work" is, well, utterly pointless even by the standards of scifi fans arguing on the internet.

I agree, though I think using the number of TIEs stationed on the Death Star might not be the best analogy, particularly since they do get attacked by multiple fighters during their escape.

According to Wookiepedia, Coruscant was indeed named by Zahn (I could have sworn it was in the novelisation of the original trilogy, but I read that when I was about eleven), and only adopted by Lucas in TPM. Apparently Lucas' original name for the imperial capital, to be mentioned in Jedi at one point during the writing process, was "Had Abbadon".

On that note, here's a nice little read about Star Wars canon, based on a 1979 attempt to puzzle out the SW universe using only ANH: http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/canon.html

That's a fun read. Particularly liked the idea that the rebellion didn't so much conduct espionage as it waited for documents to be declassified.

 

Other great stuff:

On Tatooine: "Confusing fictional setting and shooting location, the fans seem convinced it's 'Tataouine'. The good thing is this is never going to matter for the sequels, because there is no logical or dramatic reason for the action to backtrack there, as Luke even points out."

 

"What kind of utopia needs samurai with mind control powers for a police service?" - I love that this and the bizarre treatment of droids has been present and notable since the first film, meaning Star Wars canon has always been rather messy and filled with uncomfortable (and unintended) implications.

 

And the best: listing Luke and Leia sharing a mother as one of the ten worst twists possible at the end.

[Horza]

I do like the idea of a more political Star Wars with the Emperor as a Space-Hirohito being manipulated by a sinister militaristic cabal, it would make it even more Kurosawa-like, and possibly give Carrie Fisher more to sink her teeth into.