Well I’ve always been a huge Anakin fan, so perhaps some bias is seeping in here, but Anakin Skywalker is the beating heart of Star Wars, whether he’s a Jedi war hero or a Dark Lord of the Sith.
The original six-movie saga would be completely unrecognizable without the central focus on Anakin’s rise, fall, and redemption.
Overall, yes. The greatest displays of power we’ve seen throughout Legends are leaps and bounds ahead of anything we’ve seen in the films or any other piece of Canon material.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing - sometimes it can be downright awesome, other times it feels more like fan-fictional ignorance of the rules governing the Star Wars universe.
I’m guessing this is a VS battle? Obviously, Grievous is much more of a threat in Legends than Canon, though I suspect this has to do with everyone being more powerful in Legends compared to Canon.
However, I prefer Canon Grievous as a character more so than Legends Greivous.
I disagree @Maverick of Mos Eisley. While I understand your frustration with the ST’s focus on resolving OT character arcs, I don’t think it diminished the ST’s ability to craft their own compelling characters.
In fact, I feel like it strengthened them, particularly for Luke and Rey as well as Kylo and Leia.
To the point of the post, I would simply want a larger time gap between TFA and TLJ. Perhaps that would necessitate ending TFA before Rey finds Luke, thus dissolving the pressure to open TLJ with the resolution of that scene, but the lack of content between the two films due to this slim window is rather limiting for my taste.
Some other tweaks here and there - I also wouldn’t mind seeing more of Rose in TROS - but nothing that would radically change the plot. For the most part, I’m ok with what we have.
@Asmitthe Jurassic park geek hits the nail on the head. The Sequels are now Carrie Fischer’s legacy (particularly TLJ and TROS), for better or for worse, and to simply “erase” her last testament, so to speak, to the franchise is not something Lucasfilm should consider.
Not that Lucasfilm would erase and replace the Sequels anyway, regardless of if KK is at the helm. I don’t really think people fully understand the commercial, financial, and continuity burden that would result in (not to mention being a big middle-finger to everyone who worked on the films).
It’s really never been done in film history, at least that I know of. Rebooting a franchise is one thing. Selectively going back and cherry-picking certain films to abolish for really no discernible reason other than some folks dislike them are believe they are “disrespectful” to the OT is ludicrous.
Not to mention how much Canon material would have to be removed: film novelizations, comics like The Rise of Kylo Ren, novels like Resistance Reborn, videogames like the Battlefront II campaign, etc. Really anything even tangentially related to the ST would have to be ignored and taken off the shelf. Galaxy’s Edge emphasis on the ST would have to be overhauled as well.
How is this a financially viable investment?
And really, the fact that the Sequels caused the EU to be relabeled as Legends was neither a surprise nor a bad thing. Most Legends fans are older and have been invested in the franchise for some time, whereas Canon’s barebones nature as of now is more welcoming and accessible to newcomers.
To be honest, a community like this wouldn’t exist if Legends kept trudging along, and if it did it would have a lot less members.
Every author in Legends knew that they were playing in George Lucas’ sandbox. Although Lucas tried to keep details between the films and the EU consistent (Coruscant, Aayla Secura, etc)., he was never beholden to the EU.
Sometimes it was little things, such as when ATOTC retconned Zahn’s description of the Clone Wars in the Thrawn Trilogy. Other times it was much more obvious, as seen in Lucas and Filoni’s TCW trampling over the pre-existing Clone War multi-media project. The fact is, he just didn’t care:
(Taken from an interview with Lucas in Starlog magazine):
“When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions.”
The fact that the Lucasfilm Story Group decided to bulldoze everything that George Lucas didn’t have a hand in telling (i.e. the films and TCW) was a way to give authors and filmmakers creative freedom (not tying themselves to over 30 years of lore and niche stories), focus up continuity (not that Canon is free from inconsistencies and contradictions, but it’s definitely improved), and tell stories that adhere to the rules of Star Wars as established by Lucas in the first six films (which really only doesn’t happen when creators ignore the LSG as Abrams did in TROS).
From my understanding, Lucasfilm had much more cause to do a clean sweep of Legends than they ever will for a multi-billion dollar trilogy of films that have brought a lot of young people (including little kids) into Star Wars.
And to be honest, I for one do not have the heart to tell the little girl who walked into my theater dressed as Rey that she can’t enjoy TROS because the trilogy is disrespectful to the franchise and needs to be removed.
If you do, don’t jump in. Slowly dip your toe in the pool and see if it’s for you.
Almost every legends fan will tell newcomers to start with Heir to the Empire, and while that’s not a bad place to start, I would personally recommend starting with a standalone story such as Kenobi. It’s a well-written book, gives you a glimpse of how authors expand on the mythos in the movies, and acts as a nice companion piece to ROTS.
In my opinion, the Legends Post-ATOTC to ANH (basically the Clone Wars through the Dark Times era) have the consistently best, most coherent stories, whereas post-ROTJ is a mixed bag of some truly phenomenal works (Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor) and some long, frustrating deviations from what Star Wars is intended to be (New Jedi Order series).
But you know yourself better than I do. You may want to start in the post-ROTJ era if you really dislike it in Canon, as many Sequel trilogy detractors insist this pretty saturated era in legends storytelling is superior to Canon in almost every way.
Nice write up @Vault13warrior! I enjoyed reading your thoughts (the pictures with the captions were a wonderful touch!).
I’m of the opinion that Vader’s armor actually made him a better Sith in the long run. Even if he lost his physical prowess and mobility, he’s still a nigh unstoppable force in battle. He earned his reputation as the Emperor’s enforcer.
Although his suit does come with a number of flaws and weaknesses, Vader used his skills as a mechanic to remedy most of them in the Star Wars: Darth Vader: Dark Lord of the Sith comic.
When the limitations of his suit were exploited, such as in his fight against Kirak Infil'a, he was forced to adapt. He couldn’t just steamroll his enemy like he usually does, but instead had to think like a Sith and use ruthless cunning and cold manipulation to gain victory.
But I do see your point with TROS’s indication that Palpatine always planned on some form of Transfer essence on his apprentice (strangely, as I type this, that motivation adds some understandability to his pressuring of Luke to strike him down in ROTJ - he saw Luke as his newest vessel).
It would’ve been interesting to see Luke grow up without Ben Kenobi’s protection and guidance in ANH. Let’s also not forget that at the end of his life, Maul was searching for Luke as well. Would Luke have still become the Jedi Master we know him as if Ben wasn’t there?
A fascinating conversation on just how much Ben influenced Luke’s journey could arise from that question.
I think an argument could be made that it would be Leia who Yoda would elect to train in the ways of the Force instead of Luke.
Ultimately, I don’t think Palpatine-in-Anakin’s body would have triumphed in the end. Palpatine’s incurable flaw was that he’s too overconfident, something that would only become more pronounced if he now wielded the Chosen One’s power in the Force.
The remaining Jedi may have still defeated him, and I think the Galactic Civil War would have mostly remained what we now know it as.
This was a really fun thought experiment! Thanks for putting in the effort Vault!
I don’t think it’s like in Avatar: The Last Airbender, in that “every Jedi who ever lived” spiritually lives in Rey feeding her wisdom and power like an Avatar’s past lives.
I took it more as a reinforcement of Luke’s words: “A thousand generations live in you now.” Rey is the last Jedi, but she’s also the product of all the other Jedi who came before her.
Her saying she’s “all the Jedi” is more like her reinforcing the idea that 1) she is a Jedi (not Palpatine’s Empress) and 2) This final showdown between the Jedi and Sith is Rey finishing the mission of countless Jedi before her: destroying the Sith and bringing back the balance.
Now Palpatine saying that all the Sith live in him could be taken the same way, but I don’t think it’s completely inaccurate to think he’s being more literal than Rey. I’d have the rewatch the movie (or better yet read the novelization) to give a more concrete answer.
It’s nebulous, and open to interpretation, but for me the Rule of Cool applies here: when that lightsaber hit Rey’s hand and she said “And I ... am all the Jedi,” I nearly jumped out of my seat all three times I went to see TROS in theaters.
Lol four different degrees of positive ratings and only one negative option.
It’s my least favorite of the Sequel Trilogy, but I still liked it and think it miraculously succeeded in satisfyingly concluding a trilogy and a saga amidst a flood of polarized audience expectations.
I have mixed feelings on Palpatine’s return, leaning towards negative, as well as Rey being revealed as his granddaughter. Thematically, it’s a really creative and profound decision, but it poses more problems than it solves.
I disliked that the Knights of Ren were cast aside without any real purpose other than perhaps as a stepping stone in Ben Solo’s redemption, which was sudden but not altogether out of place.
A few other issues here and there, but for the most part, I’m pretty happy with what we got. JJ Abrams is definitely a crowd pleaser, but he had tons of pressure, so I understand why he tried to cater to as many people as possible after TLJ.
A fun, but flawed, film.
No arguments there. Good chat, Jou.
Well I think Star Wars has emphasized that titles have meaning.
Luke declaring he’s a Jedi like his father in ROTJ, Ahsoka rejecting the title of Jedi in TCW and Rebels, Maul casting off his “Darth” title in Rebels, even Rey choosing to adopt the surname of Skywalker ... what we call ourselves means something.
In specific regards to the Dark Jedi, the motivation for dissociating themselves with the Jedi is probably the same as in Legends where the original Sith-exiles rejected the title of Jedi for that of the Jen’jidai.
I mean, would anyone really have cared if the original exiles called themselves Dark Jedi instead of adopting the title of Sith from the purebloods they encountered? Probably not. But it mattered enough to the exiles to completely revise their name.
Yes it’s symbolic, and the importance of that symbolism will vary from person to person, but for some characters I think it would make sense.
I know of Jerec and his Inquisitors, but you’d probably know better than I if a name separation from “Jedi” would matter to him or not.
It just seems to me that the Imperial Inquisitors would cast off any title relating to the Jedi, since Palpatine’s mission by means of the Inquisitors was to expunge the Jedi from the galaxy.
The fact that the Inquisitors also are stripped of their former names and take on titles like “Second Sister” or “Fifth Brother” only seems to reinforce the idea that anything associating them with the Jedi would be taboo.
So the masses determine the naming, which the so-called Dark Jedi just passively accept, for one reason or another?
I can buy that for some characters, particularly those who have the attitude of “I don’t care what you call me,” but for others, I feel like distinguishing themselves from the Jedi is a priority. Particularly, in this case, the Inquisitors.
^^Right, but why are they given the label of “Dark Jedi” if they have nothing to do with the Jedi?
I understand that “Dark Jedi” was the canonically correct term for such individuals, my point is that nominally associating them with the Jedi feels inappropriate considering they aren’t and never were Jedi.
I know it’s the correct term, but shouldn’t a term more accurately reflective of non-Sith dark siders be used if they weren’t ever associated with the Jedi.
It’s not a huge problem, but I think it’s worth evaluating why no other term has been invented.
Gotcha. My apologies, I’ll be sure to omit the “p” in the future.
^^I’m not familiar with pre-Heir to the Empire supplementary work, I’ll trust your word on that. I was wrong, in that regard.
I think the label of “Dark Jedi” worked well enough back when it was first used, but it becomes problematic to me when you get to Dark Siders who are neither Sith nor ex-Jedi in both Canon and Legends (e.g. post-TPM Maul, Starkiller, etc).
Even the Inquisitors have nothing to do with the Jedi anymore, beyond hunting them down. The term’s continued use was always confusing to me.
@Joupena You’re last comment directed to me was confusing. Were you saying you don’t like being called “Joup”?
I think you meant “indisputable,” Joup. And once again, I’m not denying it.
I’m simply voicing an opinion here. I don’t see why that’s a problem.
I’m not denying your explanation of what Dark Jedi are is accurate, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s an appropriate term to use anymore, for the Inquisitors or any non-Sith dark sider, given that it was a term born out of necessity rather than accuracy.
Timothy Zahn invented the term Dark Jedi to describe dark siders since I don’t think the term “Sith” was used in the OT. Zahn didn’t know what to call dark siders like Vader or Joruus_C%27baoth so he went with Dark Jedi.
It’s not really accurate though since they really don’t have anything to do with the Jedi. Zahn himself has gone on record and admitted it’s a little outdated.
I would edge closer on just calling them “Dark Siders.” Dark Jedi, Gray Jedi, and other such labels have always been nebulous terms that don’t really make much sense (you’re either a Jedi or you’re not).
Most of the Inquisitors were former Jedi, and since their mission was to eradicate all Jedi from the galaxy, I’m sure anything with “Jedi” in the title would be considered taboo.
Lucasfilm has done nothing to tamper with the Rule of Two in the current Canon. The commentary on the ancient Sith in the texts Rey reads from has nothing to do with Darth Bane’s reformation.
Notice that the text reads “Ruled by Two.” Obviously, this is reminiscent of the “Rule of Two,” but not the same. The text only affirms that the Order of the Sith were defined by the relationships between Masters and Apprentices (as Maul attested to when he and Ezra infiltrated the temple on Malachor).
Which makes sense for the ancient Sith, since the first Sith were fallen Jedi and utilized the familiar “Master, Apprentice” structure of the Jedi Order while building the Sith Order.
Of course, Darth Bane recognized that multiple Sith Masters and Apprentices was folly for the Dark Side, and he abolished the old Imperial Sith Order and open conquest against the Jedi by implementing the Rule of Two, many years after the text Rey read from was written I might add.
This also doesn’t really retcon the idea that Bane invented the Rule of Two, because he never really did, even in Legends. He refined and implemented the idea, but the idea of “1 Master, 1 Apprentice” was presented to him by Darth Revan’s holocron in Legends.