spoilers [SPOILERS] Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker

[sologdin]

a simple good/evil binary does not accord with my reading.  they accuse each other being evil, but the practices interpenetrate--is resurrection is good or evil? mind control is good or evil? indoctrination is which? violence is which?

You can try to say that he may be mistaken ... but an informed character in the fictional world trumps your interpretation which is based on no in-universe content.

not sure this follows. it may be that the character's in-setting interpretation may have been overcome by events and rendered thereby implicitly defective.

[Jeor]

The balance of the Force is a useful concept in that it explains a lot of the history (and brings continual impetus for new storylines, as the good guys can't win forever). It's also not an uncommon concept in many current religions or worldviews. The way I see it, there has been constant imbalance:

There was a Sith Empire; this was then destroyed and the Republic with Jedi surfaced; Palpatine destroys the Republic and the Sith are ascendant again; Luke Skywalker arrives and the light side comes back; Snoke/Palpatine then returns.

At the end of RotS we have two Jedi (Yoda, Obi-Wan) and two Sith (Sidious, Vader) so from a numbers point it's balanced, although clearly over time that balance tilts towards the Sith if you think of it in terms of actual power and not just number of people. It was obvious that Anakin's bringing balance to the Force should have been viewed as bad news by the Jedi, who were ascendant at the time of his arrival.

In a vast galaxy there will always be Sith/Jedi remnants around the place; so although there are no plans for an immediate sequel, I'm sure some Sith relics or cultists will still be around for Rey and co to deal with.

[Rippounet]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The balance of the Force is restored when the Sith are destroyed - something that was accomplished now, one imagines, by Emperor Palpatine's granddaughter.

People have done a lot of pointless theorizing about the Jedi also doing something wrong that put the Force out of balance - but that's just in people's heads. The movies never establish anything of that sort, nor do any official supplementary material (i.e. stuff that is very closely connected to the movies, like novelizations, etc.). Lucas has explained some of that stuff in the audio commentaries and such. He said Anakin restored balance to the Force when he 'killed' Palpatine. That's that.

Hmmm... these commentaries notwithstanding, there's a number of sources that show that there must (or can) be balance between light and darkness:
- The Mortis arc of the Clone Wars series (which really surprised me when I saw it, since it creates a canon mythology).
- Cavan Scott's Star Wars audiobook Dooku: Jedi Lost.
- Claudia Gray's novel Master & Apprentice (about Dooku and Qui-Gon Jinn).
- James Luceno's novel Darth Plagueis (presenting Anakin's birth as a reaction to Plagueis tempering with the midi-chlorians).
- The Knights of the Old Republic video games (possibly non-canon now).
- The origins of the Jedi (Je’daii) in Legends/EU (now non-canon).

From the movies you can add:
- Annakin's reaction to the Jedi code (which was more detailed in the CW series than in the movies).
- Luke's comment about the Jedi having to end (and him burning the ancient texts).
- The appearance of the Prime Jedi in episode 8 (in a mosaic).
Generally speaking, Anakin falling to the dark side because of attachment can be seen as showing how complicated it is to be both Jedi and human, and the failure of the Jedi as we know them at the time suggest that the Jedi code that we know was always mistaken (putting too much constraint on the Jedi).

We can also add the very existence of "gray" Jedi, which I believe to be canon still, though what grays are is not clear. Ahsoka Tano and Qui-Gon Jinn are both generally considered gray because of their personal (liberal) approach to the Jedi code. But "gray Jedi" can also be defined as Jedi who can use the dark side without being corrupted by it, with a code of their own (which is non-canon I believe).

All this to say that the idea of balance is certainly not "just in people's heads," it's been developed in a great number of sources, both canon and non-canon. This is the case of a creation taking a life of its own: though Lucas did see "balance" as the elimination of the Sith, his "yin-yang" approach had led to a slightly different view of "balance" since the yang and the yin cannot exist without each other.
Honestly, I'd say the truth is that the whole thing as created by Lucas always contained this contradiction, and Lucas himself never solved the problem. Instead, many of his comments made things worse (see below).

I, for myself, am on board with the idea of "balance" as being between light and dark, as it makes the universe less manichean.
Which is why I was surprised by Rey ending up with a yellow lightsaber rather a white one, since I expected her to end up gray... I guess Abrams couldn't quite go that far...

And a few interesting quotes (found through a quick google search):

• "The overriding philosophy in Episode I—and in all the Star Wars movies, for that matter—is the balance between good and evil." -George Lucas, quoted in L. Bouzereau, Star Wars: The Making of Episode I, 1999

• "In each of us we to have balance these emotions, and in the Star Wars saga the most important point is balance, balance between everything." -George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 2002

• "The idea of positive and negative, that there are two sides to an entity, a push and a pull, a yin and a yang, and the struggle between the two sides are issues of nature that I wanted to include in the film." -George Lucas, quoted in L. Bouzereau, Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays

• "The Force has two sides - [Light and Dark]. It is not a[n inherently] malevolent or a benevolent thing. It has a bad side to it, involving hate and fear, and it has a good side, involving love, charity, fairness and hope." -George Lucas, Times Magazine, 1980

• "I wanted to have this mythological footing because I was basing the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, the good side, the evil side, and they both need to be there. Most religions are built on that, whether it's called yin and yang, God and the devil—everything is built on the push-pull tension created by two sides of the equation. Right from the very beginning, that was the key issue in Star Wars." -George Lucas, Times Magazine, 2002

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm... these commentaries notwithstanding, there's a number of sources that show that there must (or can) be balance between light and darkness:
- The Mortis arc of the Clone Wars series (which really surprised me when I saw it, since it creates a canon mythology).

Where it is quite clear that the Son is ruining everything by killing the Father and the Daughter, right? Damn, I have to rewatch this thing again.

Yoda's spirit quest arc is pretty good, too.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

- Cavan Scott's Star Wars audiobook Dooku: Jedi Lost.
- Claudia Gray's novel Master & Apprentice (about Dooku and Qui-Gon Jinn).

Those seem to be rather new works. I wanted to listen to the former, but didn't get around to it yet.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

- James Luceno's novel Darth Plagueis (presenting Anakin's birth as a reaction to Plagueis tempering with the midi-chlorians).

Sure, yeah, which means the Sith are the problem. They may have triggered a reaction of the Force to restore the balance again ... or Plagueis and Sidious might actually be Anakin's 'father'. That interpretation is possible, too. It is not clear what happened there exactly.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

- The Knights of the Old Republic video games (possibly non-canon now).
- The origins of the Jedi (Je’daii) in Legends/EU (now non-canon).

The Je'daii come across pre-Jedi/Sith in the sense that their use of the Force is not exclusive to one side. We don't know when the Jedi actually begin, but my guess is that the story would have shown that at one point the investigation of the dark side reached a point where the first Sith-like stuff started - and this was then something the Je'daii as a whole were not willing to entertain anymore, becoming Jedi.

It goes without saying that there were many sort of 'grey Force sects' who did pretty well in the EU. If we pretend that the Jedi and Sith had a reason to go where they went one assumes that when you dig deep enough into the dark side you eventually end up on the Sith path.

I mean, I never understood the philosophical difference between a normal Jedi and a grey Jedi. Sure, the latter usually are not in the order and perhaps they have families in the post-Ruusan period. But the standard Jedi are not passive philosophers only contemplating the Force. They have not turned their back on the universe, they go out into the world and help people as well as they can. If too much light were as dangerous as too much dark then the Jedi wouldn't have lightsabers nor would they kill people, one assumes. And that just isn't the case.

In fact, they essentially walk the same fine line as grey Jedi do - in fact, are there meaningful philosophical differences between Bastila and the grey Jedi from KotOR? I don't recall any.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

From the movies you can add:
- Annakin's reaction to the Jedi code (which was more detailed in the CW series than in the movies).

TCW does a lot to show Anakin in a more positive light, by the way. This was really great, considering the shitty guy he is in AOTC and ROTS.

With hindsight, the entire prequel era could have been really well served by, say, three subsequent TV shows instead of three movies. And it might still be very interesting to revisit the decade between TPM and AOTC in a TV show. That way one could actually show the problems of the Republic in depth, and how corruption, etc. let to the rise of the Separatist movement, etc.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

- Luke's comment about the Jedi having to end (and him burning the ancient texts).
- The appearance of the Prime Jedi in episode 8 (in a mosaic).
Generally speaking, Anakin falling to the dark side because of attachment can be seen as showing how complicated it is to be both Jedi and human, and the failure of the Jedi as we know them at the time suggest that the Jedi code that we know was always mistaken (putting too much constraint on the Jedi).

Well, that at best could be seen as there being some problems with certain teachings of the Jedi - which isn't the same as them being a dead end as an order.

There one comes to the point where things get really confusing since with EU stuff in mind the whole celibacy angle of the Jedi wasn't always the case. Luke himself is married and has a son in the EU, but he still also has a new Jedi Order. So there would have been ways to resolve this.

If take it seriously that the Jedi should go then George Lucas definitely picked the wrong title for Episode VI - because no Jedi did return there. Instead, the last of them died, and as per TFA no Jedi whatsoever had 'returned'.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

We can also add the very existence of "gray" Jedi, which I believe to be canon still, though what grays are is not clear. Ahsoka Tano and Qui-Gon Jinn are both generally considered gray because of their personal (liberal) approach to the Jedi code. But "gray Jedi" can also be defined as Jedi who can use the dark side without being corrupted by it, with a code of their own (which is non-canon I believe).

Insofar as the movies are concerned none of those exist. Ahsoka is basically a Jedi who isn't in the order - she never did anything grey that I'm aware of, nor did she go around using the dark side in a more liberal way than the normal Jedi. And she did not marry and have children as per Rebels.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

All this to say that the idea of balance is certainly not "just in people's heads," it's been developed in a great number of sources, both canon and non-canon. This is the case of a creation taking a life of its own: though Lucas did see "balance" as the elimination of the Sith, his "yin-yang" approach had led to a slightly different view of "balance" since the yang and the yin cannot exist without each other.
Honestly, I'd say the truth is that the whole thing as created by Lucas always contained this contradiction, and Lucas himself never solved the problem. Instead, many of his comments made things worse (see below).

I don't think we have much contradiction there. It is quite clear that there is just one Force which has a dark and a light side - it is the same Force, not a Dark and Light Force who fight each other.

Avoiding/resisting the dark side doesn't mean you somehow warp yourself in the wrong way - it means not following the Sith nonsense which is a perversion of life and the Force, basically. Destroying the Sith does not destroy the dark side, it just helps people get along better with living normally.

[Basically that's what was the original teaching of Vergere in 'Traitor' - there is just one Force, and the user is the one who uses it in a positive or negative way. That is the view that makes the most sense, although one certainly can say that certain of using the Force - like it using to kill or torture people are things that negatively reflect on you - which is why we have in games and the like Force lighting used to short-circuit traits as 'a good trait' whereas Force lighting used against sentients as 'a bad trait'.]

How on earth this Force thing can warp people in madmen like Palpatine and Vader if one acts in a certain way I never understood. But it apparently is the case - somehow philosophy really gets dangerous if it is evil dark side philosphy and you are a powerful Force user.

Whether people thing 'being seduced by the dark side' means that certain Force sides and techniques can corrupt you on a moral level or whether that's just a metaphor for 'somebody turned bad' has never been addressed or properly discussed in the movies.

This ambiguity goes through all the various Star Wars stories, with various authors and writers addressing it differently. But there is real answer to that issue.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

• "The overriding philosophy in Episode I—and in all the Star Wars movies, for that matter—is the balance between good and evil." -George Lucas, quoted in L. Bouzereau, Star Wars: The Making of Episode I, 1999

• "In each of us we to have balance these emotions, and in the Star Wars saga the most important point is balance, balance between everything." -George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 2002

• "The idea of positive and negative, that there are two sides to an entity, a push and a pull, a yin and a yang, and the struggle between the two sides are issues of nature that I wanted to include in the film." -George Lucas, quoted in L. Bouzereau, Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays

• "The Force has two sides - [Light and Dark]. It is not a[n inherently] malevolent or a benevolent thing. It has a bad side to it, involving hate and fear, and it has a good side, involving love, charity, fairness and hope." -George Lucas, Times Magazine, 1980

• "I wanted to have this mythological footing because I was basing the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, the good side, the evil side, and they both need to be there. Most religions are built on that, whether it's called yin and yang, God and the devil—everything is built on the push-pull tension created by two sides of the equation. Right from the very beginning, that was the key issue in Star Wars." -George Lucas, Times Magazine, 2002

Those are for the most part from before ROTS, so they are not worth all that much insofar as Lucas' final interpretation of this is concerned. I mean, it is ROTS where Obi-Wan basically says that Anakin was supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them.

Overall, as I understand it, the crucial point is that the Sith are not part 'of the natural light-dark, good-evil' thing. They are a pervision. They are wrong.

Else the entire thing makes pretty much no sense. I mean, don't there have to be some Sith around if there is to be balance between them and the Jedi? The Sith are on the wrong side of the balance ... but the Jedi aren't their opposite, they are sitting on the fence. The opposite of the Sith (if they exist) never show up in any Star Wars stuff I know.

[Rippounet]

You make a lot of valid points, so I'll focus on the ones I can discuss.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, I never understood the philosophical difference between a normal Jedi and a grey Jedi.

Neither do I tbh. I think there's a real problem as to how one defines a "Jedi."
If being a Jedi is following the code, then a "gray jedi" isn't really a Jedi... Otoh if being a Jedi means favoring the light, then you can reject the code and still be one... But do you cease to be a Jedi the moment you use your emotions and/or the dark side? None of this is clear. Obviously there's a threshold somewhere, but no one knows where it is (not even the characters who should).

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that at best could be seen as there being some problems with certain teachings of the Jedi - which isn't the same as them being a dead end as an order.

Yes, absolutely. But that's the thing: how far can you stray from the code and remain a "Jedi" ?

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Insofar as the movies are concerned none of those exist. Ahsoka is basically a Jedi who isn't in the order - she never did anything grey that I'm aware of, nor did she go around using the dark side in a more liberal way than the normal Jedi. And she did not marry and have children as per Rebels.

This I can discuss. Imho in her fight with Vader it's quite clear that she's drawing on negative emotions. She states herself that she's after revenge, and her facial expression shows hatred and/or anger.
In fact, Vader himself says: "Revenge is not the Jedi way."
To which she replies (snarling): "I am no Jedi."

So to me it was always very clear that Ahsoka is definitely gray, not just because she rejects the code, but also because she taps into emotions that are prohibited by the code because they lead to using the dark side. Of course, she's much more peaceful when she's not fighting, but I think she definitely uses the dark side when fighting Vader (which is why she's able to go toe to toe with him, though of course Vader is always weaker when fighting people he may care about).

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think we have much contradiction there. It is quite clear that there is just one Force which has a dark and a light side - it is the same Force, not a Dark and Light Force who fight each other.

How on earth this Force thing can warp people in madmen like Palpatine and Vader if one acts in a certain way I never understood. But it apparently is the case - somehow philosophy really gets dangerous if it is evil dark side philosphy and you are a powerful Force user.

I read recently (somewhere) that the dark side is like a powerful drug. It gives such a boost in power that's is very difficult to stop tapping into it. Eventually, the force-user only accesses the dark side, which has an effect on their body.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Whether people thing 'being seduced by the dark side' means that certain Force sides and techniques can corrupt you on a moral level or whether that's just a metaphor for 'somebody turned bad' has never been addressed or properly discussed in the movies.

It seems it's kinda both, a vicious circle. Using the dark side for the first time implies a form of moral failing. But as the user keeps using the dark side, eventually it twists their view of reality, and it takes great will to overcome the addiction.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Those are for the most part from before ROTS, so they are not worth all that much insofar as Lucas' final interpretation of this is concerned. I mean, it is ROTS where Obi-Wan basically says that Anakin was supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them.

Yes, but as was pointed out, Obi-Wan could be wrong, basing his reading of the prophecy on the code.
It's often been theorized that Qui-Gon Jinn had a much deeper understanding of the prophecy (precisely because he didn't believe in the code). Plus, Qui-Gon was Dooku's apprentice, and Dooku was close to Sifo-Dyas and his master Lene Kostana, both of which believed the Sith would return eventually. All three of them not only hid some of their knowledge from the Council, but also disobeyed it eventually.
Point is, Qui-Gon was taught to be critical of the code by Dooku (and he says a few things along those lines to Obi-Wan in episode 1), and since Dooku turned to the dark side eventually, it's reasonable to say his master's fascination for the Sith left him with a more nuanced version of the nature of "balance." In fact, Qui-Gon ended up being closer to the force than pretty much all other Jedi, including Yoda - whom he had to teach.

The audiobook on Dooku even goes as far as introducing what is obviously a gray mantra:
We call upon the three — light, dark, and balance true. One is no greater than the others. Together, they unite, restore, center, and renew. We walk into the light, acknowledge the dark, and find balance within ourselves. The Force is strong.

All in all, I'd say we have several sources (TCW, the audiobook) clearly saying that the code was mistaken because it did not allow the Jedi to find balance within and truly listen to the force.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Else the entire thing makes pretty much no sense. I mean, don't there have to be some Sith around if there is to be balance between them and the Jedi? The Sith are on the wrong side of the balance ... but the Jedi aren't their opposite, they are sitting on the fence. The opposite of the Sith (if they exist) never show up in any Star Wars stuff I know.

An interesting point. What is the true opposite of a Sith? As far as we know there isn't any indeed, the light cannot corrupt as the dark does. However, one might say that refusal to acknowledge one's negative emotions (that are part of being human) is a perversion of its own, one that led the Jedi to be instruments of war (under the Republic) while closing their eyes on a great many evils in the galaxy (such as slavery). In other words, there is no opposite to a Sith, but a Jedi strictly following the code may end up disturbing the force nonetheless. A different way to put it: you can be a Jedi (never using the dark side) and yet refuse to listen to the force, because you have closed yourself to certain emotions.

I think much of StarWars is about aknowledging that there is darkness in everyone, and that to truly overcome evil one must first overcome the darkness within. Hence, even if the notion of "cosmic balance" remains vague, it is quite clear that it is about inner balance at least.
 

[kuenjato]

Really surprised to see a lot of people around here giving this a muted thumbs-up--twenty, fifteen, even ten years ago this shit would have been savaged around these parts. Guess we get mellower as we get older?

In any case, it was the bloated, stupid finale to a trilogy that has always been surface-level appropriation of the OT without possessing much of the genuine effort (in terms of trying to get a good script down) that the OT required. These films are, at their core, lazy -- but even TLJ, a film that was terrible by so many metrics--even TLJ was better than this muddled, slapdash garbage. The ending felt particularly offensive, in that none of it felt earned, at all. This impression might be because so much of this film (and the previous two) felt so fucking fake.

I saw TFA and TLJ three times each. I don't think I'll even see this a second time.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Neither do I tbh. I think there's a real problem as to how one defines a "Jedi."
If being a Jedi is following the code, then a "gray jedi" isn't really a Jedi... Otoh if being a Jedi means favoring the light, then you can reject the code and still be one... But do you cease to be a Jedi the moment you use your emotions and/or the dark side? None of this is clear. Obviously there's a threshold somewhere, but no one knows where it is (not even the characters who should).

Yes, absolutely. But that's the thing: how far can you stray from the code and remain a "Jedi" ?

I think the question there would be where exactly those different philosophies would influence the actions of Jedi. My gut feeling would be that the differences would be very minor.

Quote

This I can discuss. Imho in her fight with Vader it's quite clear that she's drawing on negative emotions. She states herself that she's after revenge, and her facial expression shows hatred and/or anger.
In fact, Vader himself says: "Revenge is not the Jedi way."
To which she replies (snarling): "I am no Jedi."

So to me it was always very clear that Ahsoka is definitely gray, not just because she rejects the code, but also because she taps into emotions that are prohibited by the code because they lead to using the dark side. Of course, she's much more peaceful when she's not fighting, but I think she definitely uses the dark side when fighting Vader (which is why she's able to go toe to toe with him, though of course Vader is always weaker when fighting people he may care about).

Yes, that's right. Remind me to also rewatch Rebels these days.

Quote

I read recently (somewhere) that the dark side is like a powerful drug. It gives such a boost in power that's is very difficult to stop tapping into it. Eventually, the force-user only accesses the dark side, which has an effect on their body.

It seems it's kinda both, a vicious circle. Using the dark side for the first time implies a form of moral failing. But as the user keeps using the dark side, eventually it twists their view of reality, and it takes great will to overcome the addiction.

That is actually a pretty common interpretation of things - and, for instance, the original Tales of the Jedi comics where we get the Sith Wars with the fall of Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma (and the eventual redemption of the latter) - which in my opinion are all substantially better as Jedi stories as all we got in those new movies ;-) - we do have the dark side as a drug. Kun first starts to use it in anger and rage, but eventually he is imprisoned with shattered bones in a Sith tomb on Korriban and has to call on the dark side or die because he is cut off from other aspects of the Force. There is also Sith poison which messes with Qel-Droma's mind and Force abilities, etc.

And it was long thought and told in the EU that the dark side is corrupting the body and that Palpatine looks like he does because the dark side runs to strong in him, etc.

But then - the latter sort of get toasted by George Lucas himself with ROTS (where Palpatine somehow cannot stomach his own Sith lightning for some weird reason and that affected his face).

The problem with that overall aspect is that it is rather weird that the means of what I accomplish defines whether it was a good or bad action (or that this reflects badly on my own character). What's the overall difference if I use a lightsaber to kill or maim to save your life, or Force lighting or a choking thing?

Still, in the end the whole 'dark side = evil drug' thing seems to overall prevailinig view of the thing - although this is still not something that has properly been established in the Star Wars movies (I've no idea how they deal with the canon stuff these days, but I very much doubt that they will treat any literature as as sacrosanct as movies - so those things all have to be read as interpretations or tentative truths, etc.).

Quote

Yes, but as was pointed out, Obi-Wan could be wrong, basing his reading of the prophecy on the code.

If he were, Lucas should definitely have made that plain in the movie. This whole Chosen One prophecy is something the movies themselves do not really deal with after TPM.

Quote

It's often been theorized that Qui-Gon Jinn had a much deeper understanding of the prophecy (precisely because he didn't believe in the code). Plus, Qui-Gon was Dooku's apprentice, and Dooku was close to Sifo-Dyas and his master Lene Kostana, both of which believed the Sith would return eventually. All three of them not only hid some of their knowledge from the Council, but also disobeyed it eventually.
Point is, Qui-Gon was taught to be critical of the code by Dooku (and he says a few things along those lines to Obi-Wan in episode 1), and since Dooku turned to the dark side eventually, it's reasonable to say his master's fascination for the Sith left him with a more nuanced version of the nature of "balance." In fact, Qui-Gon ended up being closer to the force than pretty much all other Jedi, including Yoda - whom he had to teach.

The audiobook on Dooku even goes as far as introducing what is obviously a gray mantra:
We call upon the three — light, dark, and balance true. One is no greater than the others. Together, they unite, restore, center, and renew. We walk into the light, acknowledge the dark, and find balance within ourselves. The Force is strong.

 

Was Qui-Gon that unorthodox? He did some things differently, but as far as I know he never thought about leaving the order, like Dooku did, and he also did not fundamentally oppose anything (but then, I do know very few of the new stuff - I recall Luceno having wanted to include Qui-Gon's search for immortality in his Plagueis book, but it never came to that - and there is clearly a lot of stuff there missing that was hinted at in those cut scenes from ROTS).

Quote

All in all, I'd say we have several sources (TCW, the audiobook) clearly saying that the code was mistaken because it did not allow the Jedi to find balance within and truly listen to the force.

Sure, and I'd definitely say that the Jedi made mistakes. However, I think the point stands that it is rather difficult to say how they should have prevented the rise of the Sith. We likely agree that them ruling would have been worse, not better, and them having even less ties with the Republic would have resulted in them being even less able to realize that the Sith were taking over the Republic.

And whether we can imagine that them remaining 'spiritually purer' or 'closer to the Force' would have helped them understand what was going on is pretty much impossible to say.

Whether we have to see the Jedi rules as that rigid is another issue - you can always leave the order if you want to have a family, one assumes. And as the Anakin case shows his problem definitely aren't the Jedi rules - its his own desire to have everything (at once) and to control everything in his life. And TCW also showed that love is not something the Jedi treat as that unheard of. Obi-Wan did love Satine, Ahsoka had a crush on Lux, etc. and nobody condemned them for that.

Taking the little children in is somewhat freakish, but it might actually help with them being able fulfill their roles better. This is unfortunately not something they explored much in the movies. And as it turned out Luke - who became a Jedi as an adult - was the worst Jedi Master ever, completely failing to rebuild the order, and Anakin was also a Jedi who failed (and possibly because he was too old and had made too many unpleasant experiences in his life).

Quote

An interesting point. What is the true opposite of a Sith? As far as we know there isn't any indeed, the light cannot corrupt as the dark does. However, one might say that refusal to acknowledge one's negative emotions (that are part of being human) is a perversion of its own, one that led the Jedi to be instruments of war (under the Republic) while closing their eyes on a great many evils in the galaxy (such as slavery). In other words, there is no opposite to a Sith, but a Jedi strictly following the code may end up disturbing the force nonetheless. A different way to put it: you can be a Jedi (never using the dark side) and yet refuse to listen to the force, because you have closed yourself to certain emotions.

I'd imagine something diametrically opposed to the Sith would be a being who only cares about contemplation and thought, gives oneself so completely to the Force that they no longer care what happened to individual beings, etc. The Sith would be completely selfish, only caring about themselves, whereas those anti-Sith would be so selfless that they even lost themselves.

For the Je'daii seemed to know the concept of somebody being seduced/to obsessed with the light side. Those who are too dark have to meditate on Bogan, but there is also talk that some had to meditate on Ashla because they were too obsessed with the light. Unfortunately this was never explored.

How the Jedi could have changed things outside Republic space is an interesting question. One assumes that forcing the Hutts and others to abandon slavery wouldn't have worked without war. One has to keep in mind that the Jedi really created sort of a fairy-tale land with the Galactic Republic after Ruusan. There was no standing military/navy anymore, nor large wars for a thousand years, and every big conflict was mediated by the Jedi. And before that there was a thousand years of continuous war and the breakdown of nearly the entire galactic civilization. In light of that they did remarkably well.

Quote

I think much of StarWars is about aknowledging that there is darkness in everyone, and that to truly overcome evil one must first overcome the darkness within. Hence, even if the notion of "cosmic balance" remains vague, it is quite clear that it is about inner balance at least.

That most definitely. In fact, it is mostly about how people act themselves. That's the important issue, at least if we take the whole 'drug metaphor' for the dark side there. It is important that you, personally, do not do certain things, no matter what you could do with those things for others. Whether that's a particularly good thing is another matter, but it certainly is the idea that shaped the whole Force concept.

But from what we know how Jedi are described in the various books and such - they are all always aware of their own emotions and constantly call upon the Force to see clearly, to retain their balance, to not act imulsively out of anger and fear, etc. On that inner level I really can see a lot of problems.

If Lucas had wanted to show the Jedi as decadent and self-involved he would likely showed them more as a sect who really shut themselves off from outside affairs, who only meditated on the Force in their temple, not caring about the galaxy at large. But that clearly isn't the case.

Oh, and by the way: This is fun.

[Nictarion]

I liked it...

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, kuenjato said:

Really surprised to see a lot of people around here giving this a muted thumbs-up--twenty, fifteen, even ten years ago this shit would have been savaged around these parts. Guess we get mellower as we get older?

In any case, it was the bloated, stupid finale to a trilogy that has always been surface-level appropriation of the OT without possessing much of the genuine effort (in terms of trying to get a good script down) that the OT required. These films are, at their core, lazy -- but even TLJ, a film that was terrible by so many metrics--even TLJ was better than this muddled, slapdash garbage. The ending felt particularly offensive, in that none of it felt earned, at all. This impression might be because so much of this film (and the previous two) felt so fucking fake.

I saw TFA and TLJ three times each. I don't think I'll even see this a second time.

I guess I'm in part so forgiving because I really no longer care all that much. I was hurt by TFA, don't really recall what I felt about TLJ aside that I found the first watch full of very strange twists, and I really don't cared about the third movie at all. I barely watched the trailer, and went in there completely unspoiled, not even knowing whether Palpatine would show up alive or merely as voice or spirit.

In fact, I've not even watched more than half of an episode of 'The Mandalorian' up until now. Star Wars in unfortunately no longer a franchise I'm looking forward to.

[YoungGriff89]

19 hours ago, DMC said:

I still haven't seen the movie, hopefully will in the next couple days.*  Obviously though, I'm not averse to spoilers, and have been following this thread.  Anyway, the criticism above seems particularly rich.  I have many issues with TLJ, but one thing Johnson did that's hard to argue with is democratizing the mystical powers of the force.  It seems decidedly monarchical that one family would have some type of predominance over the force based on midichlorians or whatever. 

I'll grant that Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter doesn't really decentralize force power too much (especially considering my headcanon is indeed, as others have mentioned, that Sheev is partly responsible for Anakin's immaculate conception), but this clear urge to have the Skywalkers continue the "family line" speaks volumes.  Who gives a shit?  If the force and its "balance" is contingent on one, or two, genetic lines to save the day or whatever, ya know what?  Fuck the force.  That's antithetical to what Star Wars is about to me.

*Thursday was spent heading to Florida to visit my family.  My brother, who I usually would watch this with, refuses after TLJ.  My sister and her husband seem kind of willing but that's pending, they're pretty busy between the two families over the holidays.  I may have to end up watching it with my mother while I'm here, which is pretty pathetic as a 34 year old, but I don't know anyone else here.

Unless we believe that the past Jedi who existed for over a thousand generations were all Skywalkers or Palpatines, then the idea that it’s some kind of lore breaking mistake that there are more force users than just Rey and Kylo roaming the galaxy (Broom boy or even Finn for example) is ludicrous and in itself craps all over the established lore.  

[Iskaral Pust]

We went to see it this evening.  I think it was an enjoyable Star Wars movie (which has become a damning qualifier, unfortunately) and a decent conclusion to a badly muddled trilogy.  I enjoyed it more than TLJ because it managed the flow and pacing better, still had amazing visuals, the dialogue and character portrayal was much improved (no cringeworthy space prank call; Hux was less ridiculous), it held together better with Finn, Poe, Chewbacca and C3PO as the central band, with Rey dropping in and out as her hero’s journey required — those other characters are too weak when separated (as we saw in TLJ), and it delivered a good final act for the pivotal Rey-Ren relationship that fits with the SW ethos, despite being a rehash of RotJ (even as TFA was a rehash of ANH).

It had huge, massive problems with the implausibility of Palpatine and his fleet, but at least they didn’t take me out of the movie completely like the Holdo kamikaze or the two fleets limping along at the same slow pace for most of the movie.  I refuse to get emotionally invested in whether the new trilogy is appropriately respecting the history of the original trilogy.  I just don’t want to bring that much baggage with me to the movie theater.

On the plus side, I got my son the four seasons of Rebels on Blu-ray for Christmas, so hopefully that will be a higher quality source of SW entertainment.  These are entirely new to us but he really enjoyed the Clone Wars series.

Another bonus was seeing the Bond movie trailer.  It looked pretty good, with bitter scowls galore from an aging Bond in his last outing.  And a new Christopher Nolan film next summer, Tenet.

[Rippounet]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Was Qui-Gon that unorthodox? He did some things differently, but as far as I know he never thought about leaving the order, like Dooku did, and he also did not fundamentally oppose anything (but then, I do know very few of the new stuff - I recall Luceno having wanted to include Qui-Gon's search for immortality in his Plagueis book, but it never came to that - and there is clearly a lot of stuff there missing that was hinted at in those cut scenes from ROTS).

Even without going into the new stuff, the movie made it clear that Qui-Gon Jinn was unorthodox, didn't always follow the Jedi code, and wasn't afraid to defy the Council.

He basically said he would train Anakin whether the Council agreed to or not. That's pretty big stuff. At this point, I'd say he was definitely ready to leave the order to train Anakin if need be. The Council didn't exclude him because they preferred keeping an eye on them. But the split between the Council and Qui-Gon could hardly have been bigger.

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, and I'd definitely say that the Jedi made mistakes. However, I think the point stands that it is rather difficult to say how they should have prevented the rise of the Sith.

Both Sifo-Dyas and Dooku had visions of the future and of the return of the Sith, but did not trust the Council enough to alert them.

Even with the movies alone, we know there was widespread criticism and distrust of the Council before the separatists emerged.

We also know that the Council was incapable of using the force correctly, and it's easy to deduce that was because of the constraints of the code.

Yoda has this line about "the dark side clouding everything," right? Perhaps Yoda's problem is that he was so unwilling to have negative emotions that he could no longer foresee dark futures. Of course he eventually is able to see much better, but by that point he hardly has a choice since the war has started. The problem wasn't the force, surely Palpatine was not powerful enough to cloud the vision of all Jedi ; the problem was that the Jedi were also actively blinding themselves.

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd imagine something diametrically opposed to the Sith would be a being who only cares about contemplation and thought, gives oneself so completely to the Force that they no longer care what happened to individual beings, etc. The Sith would be completely selfish, only caring about themselves, whereas those anti-Sith would be so selfless that they even lost themselves.

I like this perspective.
I think it's possible to say that the Jedi order was in fact going in that direction before the crisis in episode 1. We do see Yoda meditating a lot and it takes time for members of the Council to get their hands dirty IIRC. There's even a moment when Yoda is given crucial bits of information and he simply says "meditate on that, I will." Obviously, he was way too much into contemplation and thought at first.

In fact, I always assumed that Qui-Gon did not want to be on the Council for this very reason: because members of the Council tended to stay in the temple, meditate, and order others around (not to mention judge their fellows), while Qui-Gon liked to be free to roam the galaxy and do as much good as he could, following his instincts and the force.

Building on this, one could say the war forced the most powerful Jedi to step out of their ivory tower. But by that time it was too little, too late.

PS: perhaps we're in the wrong thread by now... We're no longer discussing Rey, are we?

[DMC]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rey would have just been another version of Anakin then.

Kind of, yeah, depending on how you interpret Anakin's conception.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Them having children isn't me saying they should all have been Force sensitive.

[...]

That some children of Force sensitives also do and can inherit the talents of one of their parents is certainly true in Leia and Luke, but that's clearly not the way the Jedi ensured the continuation of their order back in the day.

K.  Sounds like all you're saying here is you wanted them to have the archetypal happy ending.  Fair enough.  The difference between them having such and reuniting as part of the force?  Meh, don't see a reason to complain about this.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, one could have made something like that work. One could have established a status quo that was not effectively the same as that of ANH.

Well, one could have done whatever they wanted upon buying the IP.  One could do whatever me or you would like them to do.  Whatever one could do, it's irrelevant to any discussion unless you want to present then defend your fan fiction.  Generally, I totes agree that I'm absolutely sure I could come up with a better premise for Eps VII-IX.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Disney would not be interested.  So I don't know how this is relevant.

Moreover, conceptually, I totally reject the idea that you can just reestablish some "status quo" that is thematically distinct from ANH while still maintaining coherence.  This seems entirely contradictory to your argument.  Things change.  After the ewoks creepily bang on the helmets of dead clones, it's not the same as before.  Could a good writer come up with a compelling way to reintroduce conflict into the galaxy post-ROTJ and concurrently bring back every living character from the OT and develop a new group of characters that will secure the IP for the future?  I guess.  Lemme know when you find such a paragon.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yoda and company didn't have an active hand in politics at all (which was equally bad)

Do you seriously think Yoda "and company" did not have an active hand in politics in the PT?  Wow.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is nothing of a real fascist movement in the PT movies.

Um...what?  Are you for serial?  This ranks up there as one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this board.  Whether Lucas executed it well is another story, but his intent?  Blatant.  Not debatable.  He was trying to depict the rise of fascism with Palpatine.  Full stop.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I'm just shocked at all the pissimism about this new movie. It's great. You forget the horror of the prequels. I'm sure there are those among you who have retconned your brain and now say the prequels were good. This is not true, nothing more than a psychological misremembering that some may prescribe to a Mandela Effect. But had we assumed this reality to be better than the current timeline, we'd have George's version of the new trilogy, which featured microbiotic rulers of the force called the willows, or the willies, or something, and they do something that creates midichlorinins. 

Our current timeline could be much, much darker.

Instead, we got a great Star Wars movie that was loads of fun. Rey is a badass, and I loved her victory, and I hope to see her again.

[Nictarion]

22 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I'm just shocked at all the pissimism about this new movie. It's great. You forget the horror of the prequels. I'm sure there are those among you who have retconned your brain and now say the prequels were good. This is not true, nothing more than a psychological misremembering that some may prescribe to a Mandela Effect. But had we assumed this reality to be better than the current timeline, we'd have George's version of the new trilogy, which featured microbiotic rulers of the force called the willows, or the willies, or something, and they do something that creates midichlorinins. 

Our current timeline could be much, much darker.

Instead, we got a great Star Wars movie that was loads of fun. Rey is a badass, and I loved her victory, and I hope to see her again.

I know the prequels are objectively bad, but there’s a lot about them I like, Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan, Darth Maul, the music, some of the space battles and lightsaber fights, the order 66 scene...

I also like the sequel trilogy, but they have their own problems, too. Overall it worked for me because I loved Rey and Kylo Ren (he had one of the best arcs in any of the movies imo), and I enjoyed seeing all of our favorites from the OT again. Story was really nothing special, but they succeeded in making me care about these brand new characters. 

[Toth]

20 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I'm just shocked at all the pissimism about this new movie. It's great. You forget the horror of the prequels. I'm sure there are those among you who have retconned your brain and now say the prequels were good. This is not true, nothing more than a psychological misremembering that some may prescribe to a Mandela Effect.

I think there is nothing to be shocked about. It's just the different focus applied by those who make themselves like the new movies and those who hate them. All you are praising is the visuals and the emotions you felt when watching them. That's the perspective of going into the cinema to expect an event. A spectacle. It's just fireworks on New Years' eve. Pretty lights and smoke, having mindless fun with the family.

And then there are those who go into the cinema asking themselves "What does this add to the overarching story of Star Wars?" Because... a movie at its core shouldn't be only look pretty. That only lasts while you are sitting there, getting overwhelmed by the spectacle. But when you think about the story, about what it does to the state of this fictional world you are invested in, then the new trilogy is just void of anything worthwhile. It doesn't add anything interesting, it violently destroys the characters you loved to prop up these empty shells of new characters that they so desperately want you to like; it destroys all previous worldbuilding to make the pretty pictures happen that they want to distract you with. The story is just empty, it's just pictures strung together and the intend of how they want to emotionally manipulate their viewers with their visuals is blatantly obvious. Which, arguably, makes them well crafted, effective movies. But atrocious as stories. And people on the other side are just as shocked as you are how people can like being deceived like that.

That's why I find your criticism of the prequels quite fitting: They also had their fair share of spectacle, but they at least added to the world, fleshing out the setting and telling a story that is pretty solid if you look past the garbled execution. That's something the sequel trilogy doesn't bring to the table and that's what pisses them off and retroactively makes people appreciate what we had with George Lucas. These new movies are only about the execution, but have nothing beyond that, nothing that can keep your imagination running afterwards. It feels empty.

I hope that clears up why these movies are so goddamn dividing. It really shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 minutes ago, Toth said:

I think there is nothing to be shocked about. It's just the different focus applied by those who make themselves like the new movies and those who hate them. All you are praising is the visuals and the emotions you felt when watching them. That's the perspective of going into the cinema to expect an event. A spectacle. It's just fireworks on New Years' eve. Pretty lights and smoke, having mindless fun with the family.

And then there are those who go into the cinema asking themselves "What does this add to the overarching story of Star Wars?" Because... a movie at its core shouldn't be only look pretty. That only lasts while you are sitting there, getting overwhelmed by the spectacle. But when you think about the story, about what it does to the state of this fictional world you are invested in, then the new trilogy is just void of anything worthwhile. It doesn't add anything interesting, it violently destroys the characters you loved to prop up these empty shells of new characters that they so desperately want you to like; it destroys all previous worldbuilding to make the pretty pictures happen that they want to distract you with. The story is just empty, it's just pictures strung together and the intend of how they want to emotionally manipulate their viewers with their visuals is blatantly obvious. Which, arguably, makes them well crafted, effective movies. But atrocious as stories. And people on the other side are just as shocked as you are how people can like being deceived like that.

That's why I find your criticism of the prequels quite fitting: They also had their fair share of spectacle, but they at least added to the world, fleshing out the setting and telling a story that is pretty solid if you look past the garbled execution. That's something the sequel trilogy doesn't bring to the table and that's what pisses them off and retroactively makes people appreciate what we had with George Lucas. These new movies are only about the execution, but have nothing beyond that, nothing that can keep your imagination running afterwards. It feels empty.

I hope that clears up why these movies are so goddamn dividing. It really shouldn't surprise anyone.

Oh this is about us viewers not sophisticated to ask questions about theme and world building. Got it. Well you haters need a thread all your own that sits atop the boards to discuss your lofty ideas as it's been decided anyone who loves this couldn't possibly add worthwhile conversation to your brilliant, nuanced discussion. 

Or, you're wrong and this trilogy did bring everything it needed. Beautifully told. Great characters. Luke's journey began as he looked at the suns of his homeworld imagining everything beyond and it ended with him gazing at the sun realizing his journey had ended. I know you thought a guy like me only wanted "Kablooey!" Or "Zaaaapppsss" and what not. 

The story of the prequels has no value on any level. It's trash.

All that's been cleared up for me is there are certain miserable fans not worth interacting with as their sadness must become the sadness of all others.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

13 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

I know the prequels are objectively bad, but there’s a lot about them I like, Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan, Darth Maul, the music, some of the space battles and lightsaber fights, the order 66 scene...

I also like the sequel trilogy, but they have their own problems, too. Overall it worked for me because I loved Rey and Kylo Ren (he had one of the best arcs in any of the movies imo), and I enjoyed seeing all of our favorites from the OT again. Story was really nothing special, but they succeeded in making me care about these brand new characters. 

I think this is it. The new characters were ones I actually cared about for the first time since the OT.

[Toth]

4 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Oh this is about us viewers not sophisticated to ask questions about theme and world building. Got it. Well you haters need a thread all your own that sits atop the boards to discuss your lofty ideas as it's been decided anyone who loves this couldn't possibly add worthwhile conversation to your brilliant, nuanced discussion. 

*sigh*... I wasn't meant to come across as hostile, but I guess that's the world we are living in. Being pitted against each other by crappy movies. I could go through every single scene in these movies and explain why they don't hold up under any scrutiny, but at the same time you wouldn't believe me anyway because your emotional investment is far too precious for you to allow doubting yourself. Maybe we can have this talk in five years or so when the hype has died down and people can look back how these movies aged similarly to how the prequels were treated later on.

8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Or, you're wrong and this trilogy did bring everything it needed. Beautifully told. Great characters. Luke's journey began as he looked at the suns of his homeworld imagining everything beyond and it ended with him gazing at the sun realizing his journey had ended. I know you thought a guy like me only wanted "Kablooey!" Or "Zaaaapppsss" and what not. 

Yeah... Luke's journey... You are just proving my point. This scene was only about the visuals, but why for the love of god was he in that position in the first place? Why was he dying as a broken old man who had made a complete 180° turn of characterization without explanation in between episode 6 and the flashback where wanted to kill his nephew because of a bad hunch? Leaving his friends to die while hiding from his responsibility, then throwing his life away. That's just... not Luke! I have no idea how you can completely disconnect this admittedly pretty nice visual callback from the context of why it happened in this mess of a story.

15 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

All that's been cleared up for me is there are certain miserable fans not worth interacting with as their sadness must become the sadness of all others. 

Yeah sure, I'm upset about these movies' creative bancruptcy just because I like spoiling other people's fun! You totally got me there! For fucks' sake, I just wanted to explain why there is so much dissonance in reception. I even went so far as call them well crafted movies, doesn't that make you happy?

[Ran]

13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

The new characters were ones I actually cared about for the first time since the OT.

I think this is a great insight. I don't love-love this trilogy, anyone can look back and see my problems with what Abrams did with the first film and what Johnson did with the second film, and even this third film has a first act that I find wrongheaded and annoying and overall involves too much plot-coupon hunting. 

But this is the film that won me over and made me care about the new cast (besides Kylo/Ben). And so that's where the cathartic elements come from: they are rooted in characters one cares about surviving (or not) and winning (or not) against all hope. Catharsis, created by the kinds of catastrophic and eucatastrophic moments that Lucas had in the original films, is what made me love Star Wars. It's part why I hold Rogue One in such high regard, because that's a film about the main characters, every one of them, sacrificing themselves for a cause and managing to win out against all hope. Every moment of that film and its plot is informed by this.

But there is no catharsis in the PT, in my experience. None, at any time. I don't like them, though I can acknowledge that I can see the bones of something good, where Lucas should have treated these films like, I don't know, the EU or cartoons where he just signed off on stuff that he felt he had no objection to and others did the heavy lifting.

This sequel trilogy was badly flawed. None of these three films are as good as their counterparts in the OT. But for me it successfully managed to conclude the Skywalker saga.