New Star Wars animated show "Rebels" coming fall 2014

[cooleddie74]

A couple of fuzzy pics from the display floor of the upcoming NY Toy Fair have leaked to Facebook allegedly showing some of this year's upcoming Rebels collectibles and other merchandise, but so far no images of the carded action figures themselves. It appears Rebels will have a presence in at least one display area at Toy Fair and that doesn't include whatever other SW items Hasbro and other manufacturers will be pushing.

Word has it that the show will debut at the srtart of fall with merchandise beginning to hit retail during the summer months leading into the premiere.

 

[Set Harth]

Light and Dark are equal in absolute terms.

Of course, when the Force is unbalanced in favor of the dark side, it seems arguable that the dark side would be to some extent more powerful in that instance ( though we don't get that impression from Yoda's TESB comments, probably because the balance of the Force hadn't been invented yet ).

I think it's inconsistently portrayed whether or not, once a person is riding the Dark power, the Dark itself infuses them with even more destructive emotions and desires.

One does get that impression from certain EU authors ( I'm thinking of James Luceno ). Lucas quotes from around the time of the production of TESB similarly ascribe agency to the dark side:

"Ben will explain to Luke that he will gather all these powers, but he can't use them for evil or he will succumb to the dark side of the Force. If you use it for evil, it will start using you. It is a force for good, but the more you become addicted to it, the more it controls you and the side that controls you is the bad side. The side that you can control is the good side. The good side is a passive side and the bad side is an aggressive side. Two sides to the Force: One is aggressive, one is passive in its relation to things." - The Making of TESB ( Rinzler )

 

[cooleddie74]

I always remember what a friend said during the course of the Prequels and about the destruction of both Vader and the Emperor at the end of Jedi. I paraphrase: "Wait, doesn't bring balance to something mean that both sides are equal? If the dark side are eliminated and all that's left is the good, then how's that any kind of balance? Sure, it's a good thing, but how's that balance? It doesn't make sense."

They were right. The logical analysis takes you out of the films and makes you realize how cobbled together the idea of the Force was across the span of six films and almost thirty years, but it's a correct analysis. Bringing balance to the Force shouldn't mean destroying the Sith, but for some Lucasverse reason in George's mind it does.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not so sure I accept that bringing balance to the Force means having equal numbers of Sith and Jedi. I mean, the Force isn't some chess game, it's the universal energy that binds all living things. Surely balance in the Force means balancing the needs of all living things. In which case the Dark Side is an unbalanced use of the Force, a corruption that tips the balance in favor of self-interest at the expense of the greater good. So getting rid of the Dark Side, i.e. the Sith, would indeed restore balance -- in the same way that banning overhunting or pollution or deforestation would restore balance to the ecosystem.

Of course, since prophecies are often deliberately ambiguous, it could have both meanings at once. First, Anakin restored a superficial kind of balance to the Force by reducing the Jedi and the Sith to equal numbers. Then, a generation later, he restored a deeper, more fundamental balance by bringing about the end of the Sith and the imbalance and corruption they brought.

 

[cooleddie74]

Could be. Maybe so, and you could be right given how poorly explained George's concept of the Force tends to be and how it evolved from film to film and trilogy to trilogy. He hasn't exactly been all that helpful himself by coming out with the definitive, no holds barred canonical definition of what the Balance of the Force truly is in his ficitonal universe, so the best we can do is take guesses that sound reasonable. I think your explanation is certainly plausible, but I just wish the creators like George and McCallum would have settled the issue years ago so debates and offhand remarks about how inconsistent it all sounds could be put to an end.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't think that bringing the Force into balance means getting rid of the dark side, at least not necessarily.

The Sith were a problem, though. They couldn't even handle there being more than a small number of their order at once.

However, The Clone Wars opened the door for other dark side adepts besides the Sith, mainly such as the Nightsisters.

Interesting point about there being only two Jedi at the beginning of ep IV, or at least only two that we know of. The fact that Luke and Leia were the last hopes against Vader and the Emperor naturally doesn't mean that there weren't some other Jedi in the galaxy, even if only a few.

 

[cooleddie74]

I suppose the Force can be viewed the way society treats, say, unemployment, poverty and crime in some respects. When one or more of those issues are considered to be so low that we are considered to have a "full employment" economy, be keeping poverty at historic lows and the streets are the safest they've statistically been in years or even decades, we consider those victories and consider our society to be healthy and successful. In balance, if you will.

Perhaps that's how the Force operates. The Dark Side practicioners across the galaxy are simply too numerous to completely erradicate even if one desired to track them all down, but if the most powerful and dangerous ones that cause the most havoc are destroyed then the Force is considered to be in a state of balance. There remain peripheral problems that could fester and surface if allowed to grow, but at that moment a form of balance is achieved, the Light Side celebrates and pats itself on the back for restoring justice and harmony to the cosmos.

 

[Christopher]

I think your explanation is certainly plausible, but I just wish the creators like George and McCallum would have settled the issue years ago so debates and offhand remarks about how inconsistent it all sounds could be put to an end.

Forget it, Jake, it's fandomtown. Even when the creators do give definitive answers to things, fans still debate them endlessly.

 

[cooleddie74]

I think your explanation is certainly plausible, but I just wish the creators like George and McCallum would have settled the issue years ago so debates and offhand remarks about how inconsistent it all sounds could be put to an end.

Forget it, Jake, it's fandomtown. Even when the creators do give definitive answers to things, fans still debate them endlessly.

Heh. Fair point. We Trekkers have several volumes of technical manuals as well as the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Chronology that spelled a lot of things out in excruciating, blow-by-blow, anal retentive detail and look at all the good that did some of us.

 

[Hound of UIster]

I just wish the creators like George and McCallum would have settled the issue years ago so debates and offhand remarks about how inconsistent it all sounds could be put to an end.

He has been saying since 1999 that Balance of the Force meant the destruction of the Sith just like he has been saying since the TPM dvd commentaries that Sidious was Palpatine and people were still going on about them being clones of each other. The fandom has an attention span of a nine month old child.

 

[Set Harth]

Bringing balance to the Force shouldn't mean destroying the Sith, but for some Lucasverse reason in George's mind it does.

As explained in Darth Plagueis, it is the Sith who have thrown the Force out of balance in the first place.

I'm not so sure I accept that bringing balance to the Force means having equal numbers of Sith and Jedi.

Of course it does not mean that. It's the balance of the Force, not the balance of the Force-users. Force-users are not the Force. "Equal numbers of Sith and Jedi" clearly does not match the intent of the PT, given that the Jedi would not look forward to such an outcome as they do the fulfillment of the prophecy. At a time when there were thousands of Jedi and only two Sith, the Force was allegedly unbalanced toward the dark side, not the light.

So getting rid of the Dark Side, i.e. the Sith

The dark side and the Sith are not the same thing. Getting rid of the Sith does not remove the dark side, but it does keep it in check by reversing or preventing its growth out of bounds relative to balance.

 

[cooleddie74]

Okay, I can buy that. Now I just have to convince my friend that "balance" in the films simply means the Sith have been vanquished. He's not gonna like that. He's a bit of a literalist when it comes to the word balance, hence the comments in the first place.

This will be amusing.

 

[Set Harth]

Okay, I can buy that. Now I just have to convince my friend that "balance" in the films simply means the Sith have been vanquished. He's not gonna like that.

There's always Obi-Wan's ROTS dialogue to go on:

"You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness."

He's a bit of a literalist when it comes to the word balance, hence the comments in the first place.

That's OK - it's a literal balance in the Force itself between the light and dark sides. In other words, it's not that the word balance is being used wrongly by the films, but that the "of the Force" part is being taken in fandom to mean something it arguably does not.

 

[Christopher]

Okay, I can buy that. Now I just have to convince my friend that "balance" in the films simply means the Sith have been vanquished. He's not gonna like that. He's a bit of a literalist when it comes to the word balance, hence the comments in the first place.

Then offer a literalist rebuttal: The phrase is "balance to the Force," not "balance to the Force-users." The Force is not the exclusive possession of the Jedi and the Sith; it is the life energy that unifies every living thing in the universe. So the literal interpretation of "balance to the Force" must mean a balanced existence for all living things, not merely a parity between two rival factions of Force-wielders.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ That's a pretty good way of looking at it. In terms of Luke, too, he's not the rigid, closed-minded "the code forbids it" Jedi of TPM, either. In many ways, he's the embodiment of that balance - sacrifice for others, but acceptance of the validity of his own emotions for his friends and loved ones. It's certainly a more healthy, "balanced" approach than PT-era dogma. And to go along with your point - Luke is simply the embodiment of the balance, not the balance itself.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

An Ahsoka vs Vader duel has to be in the cards down the road for this series.

Yeah, that needs to happen. Definitely.

But Ahsoka will most likely be dead after said battle, since we don't see her in the rest of the trilogy.

 

[cooleddie74]

Speaking of Luke being less rigid and dogmatic, does anybody remember if the New Jedi of the later EU stories who trained under Luke's leadership and guidance were allowed to engage in personal relationships outside the Order? I'm thinking that Luke's rules and guidelines were more lenient than those of the old Order during the time of the Republic.

 

[Mr Light]

The Jedi in Luke's order have no restrictions on relationships. They date, marry, have kids, and generally have sex.

It seems to work better.... of the thousand Jedi that Luke has raised, only a handful went Dark Side!

 

[Set Harth]

An Ahsoka vs Vader duel has to be in the cards down the road for this series.

Yeah, that needs to happen. Definitely.

If there's one thing I've always said, it's that Vader needs to be gimped more, and preferably by Scrappy-Doo herself.

No wait, I've never said that.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

new posters