Spoilers Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I think it fits Palpatine's sense of grandiosity.
Rey mattered to him. He wanted her to succeed him as the galaxy's new Emperor under the Final Order and be the new Emperor Palpatine. He valued her lineage so her victory redeemed his bloodline by now making it a Jedi bloodline.
Have we ever learned anything about Palpatine's family? What his parents were like, or if he had siblings, stuff like that. I'm assuming since all we heard about were his clones, he never had kids?I dunno. But also, "Palpatine's bloodline" was just one evil person, wasn't it? Referring to one bad guy as a bloodline makes it seem so grand.
A new book called The Star Wars Book has given a few more new details about who/what exactly Snoke is.
Here's the section they quote in the linked IGN article:
Here's the section they quote in the linked IGN article:
As so many movies, it's not perfect. But still highly entertaining and a pretty decent end to the Skywalker saga.
The problem with the movie isn't the movie. It's the people watching it, who all think that THEY know how the Skywalker saga SHOULD end, and anything not living up to their expectations is by default a piece of crap.
Call me a snob, but I never went in this with any expectations, other than being entertained by big booms and swooshy lightsabers. The stuff I didn't like wasn't enough for me to hate this movie.
Then again, wtf do I know. I still say that A New Hope is as bad as AOTC.
Some people are really stupid, really desperate for clicks, or both, because I just read an article claiming that The Rise of Skywalker 'misunderstands' what "balance of the Force" means and says that TRoS' statement about "balance of the Force" meaning that 'the light side wins' hurts the Sequel Trilogy's story... despite the fact that George Lucas first said that exact thing (balance of the Force being achieved when Anakin destroyed the Sith at the end of Return of the Jedi) back in 2005 and the fact that all of Star Wars Canon released since 2005 has been consistent with said statement.
* Sigh *
* Sigh *
I understand why people think that, because balance means equal of both. And that's kinda how I see it. But if the creator of said concept says it means light winning, well fuck what I think then and that's what it means.
"Balance to the Force" has always meant "the good guys winning." That's how I've taken it ever since the Prequels. Call me a fool for not latching onto what the creator of the Star Wars universe himself wrote into those films. 
A thought experiment:
One of the natural functions of your body is the creation of new cells to replace old ones. But what about when you have cancer? Cancerous cells are made by your own body. They are part of you. The system that is your body, your very biology, has created them, and may continue to. But your body isn't balanced when you have an equal amount of healthy tissue and cancerous, destructive tumor cells. It is balanced when the cancer has been removed or destroyed, and it can return to otherwise healthy function. The cancerous cells are a destructive mutation, and a threat to your continued ability to live, but which your body has no native defenses to stop.
The Dark Side is, metaphorically, a part of the biology of the Force. A native component of the system. But the ways in which the Sith (or perhaps even just Palpatine himself, the movies are sketchy on how much of things comes down to the Sith in general vs Palpatine specifically) wield it has turned them into the same kind of destructive mutation that imperils the natural function of the organism (in this case, that organism being the Force, and perhaps through it life itself).
^ In the 'Path of the Jedi' book they put out a few years back, the Dark Side is explicitly refereed to as being analogous to a cancer.
So yeah, the idea that balance equals parity between dark and light (i.e. pet puppy + kick puppy = cosmic balance) is the same kind of asinine thinking that gave us "grey Jedi". Balances means harmony, give and take, selflessness; the light side. The dark side is a corruption, disharmony; selfishness. In a perfect universe it would not exist, but nobody lives in a perfect universe.
So yeah, the idea that balance equals parity between dark and light (i.e. pet puppy + kick puppy = cosmic balance) is the same kind of asinine thinking that gave us "grey Jedi". Balances means harmony, give and take, selflessness; the light side. The dark side is a corruption, disharmony; selfishness. In a perfect universe it would not exist, but nobody lives in a perfect universe.
Last edited:
You'd probably find something on Wookiepedia about that. I remember reading stuff long ago in some Star Wars fact files about his family and earlier days but it's probably all Expanded Universe stuff now and whatever they came up with recently overwrites that.
Doesn't really reveal anything and I had it kind of worked out that way in my head. Still an unsatisfying answer.
One aspect that I liked about the ROTS novelization is that is explored the concept of the darkness as existing in all beings and the light needing cultivation, while the Dark Side is, as Yoda notes, is "easier." The Jedi are the source of the light, while the natural darkness of other beings, not just the Sith, can make balance difficult and the Sith are the cancer that completely upset the balance.
As for Snoke, I liked him as a cipher for Palpatine's rage against the Jedi, while leaving him as a complete independent being, unaware of his true origins so that Palpatine could control it without fear of competition.
Palpatine's crazy son in the Legends EU was awesome.
As for Snoke, I liked him as a cipher for Palpatine's rage against the Jedi, while leaving him as a complete independent being, unaware of his true origins so that Palpatine could control it without fear of competition.
An excerpt from the new book Star Wars Archives: 1999-2005 has revealed some new information about George Lucas's plans for his sequel trilogy.
The main villain was going to be Darth Maul, who had become the "godfather of crime in the universe" and would taken over after the Empire fell. It would have also featured Darth Talon as his apprentice, and it says she would have handled the majority of the action.
So I guess this means he would haven't have been killed by Obi-Wan like he was in Rebels.
While it could have been cool to see Maul as the big bad, I think I like the fate he ended up with better. After The Clone Wars set up the big rivalry between him and Obi-Wan, it really felt appropriate the Obi-Wan would be the one to kill him once and for all.
The main villain was going to be Darth Maul, who had become the "godfather of crime in the universe" and would taken over after the Empire fell. It would have also featured Darth Talon as his apprentice, and it says she would have handled the majority of the action.
So I guess this means he would haven't have been killed by Obi-Wan like he was in Rebels.
While it could have been cool to see Maul as the big bad, I think I like the fate he ended up with better. After The Clone Wars set up the big rivalry between him and Obi-Wan, it really felt appropriate the Obi-Wan would be the one to kill him once and for all.
I tend to agree. Honestly, that is still one of the more satisfying conclusions given the whole Clone Wars build up. Though, on the flip side, now with Clone Wars done, you could have had Ahsoka take that role. But, nothing will beat Twin Suns to my mind so need a new villain.
It's nice to see what Lucas had envisioned and I do wish he had carried forward with it at the time.
