Star Wars Sith-centric spinoff

[Wadjda]

With a dark side protagonist
Would Disney have the cojones to ever do something like that.
I would prefer Sith vs Sith action instead of them killing heroes.
If so who should direct?

I have 3 candidates:

Lu Chuan, he is wonderful at portraying complex power relations.

Te-Sheng Wei who managed to portray the opressors of his natiion in a very nuanced way in Seediq Bale.

Paul Verhoeven who just loves bringing human evil to the big screen.

Discuss, suggest...

 

[Venardhi]

What exactly are we rooting for then? The Sith are evil. They aren't anti-heroes. They aren't misunderstood. Is it a revenge flick? Darth Castaside goes after Darth Master and Darth Newrecruit after being left for dead? In that case he has to be somewhat redeemed, he has to be worth rooting for.

But no, the answer is no. Not a chance in all the galaxies no matter how long, long ago. Disney is never making that movie.

 

[Wadjda]

What exactly are we rooting for then? The Sith are evil. They aren't anti-heroes.

They can still be fascinating. Who were you rooting for in Reservoir Dogs?

It's not like there is no demand for it:

CW had at least 2 arcs with dark siders as protagonists.

 

[Mr Light]

Darth Plageuis would make for a pretty cool movie, but it's pretty cerebral without that much action. It would play more like a tv show than a big budget movie.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

With a dark side protagonist

Yeah ... it's called Star Wars - Episodes I - VI, with the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader as the central character.

ETA:
I say the above in jest, but if you were to make a story about a Dark Side character you would have to spend a whole lot of time, as Venardhi, says, creating a character worthy of redemption. The closest Star Wars has gotten to this, outside of Anakin, is Ventress in The Clone Wars. But that was a long story arc, spanning several seasons - and she was not only cast out of the Sith, she renounced it fully. Unless you're planning a major revision of what we know, the Sith are, by definition, single-mindedly evil and power hungry. Once could argue that Dooku was using the Sith as a means to an ideological end ... but then I would argue that the means are an indicator of good vs. evil.

 

[Wadjda]

Or you can just make a tragedy.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

They did. Its called: Revenge of the Sith

 

[Wadjda]

We deserve a better tragedy than that.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

That's arguable, at least. But it doesn't make sense to ignore the fact that Star Wars already has six movies "with a dark side protagonist" - telling the story of a character who grows up to become a Sith - a monster - and is then redeemed. Regardless of your opinion about RotS, it's a film that cannot happen in a vacuum. Its tragedy is in how the youthfully innocent Anakin succumbs to power and evil and ends up slaughtering innocent youths (among countless others). That's pretty damn tragic, if you ask me. But it has no impact at all if you don't know who Anakin is and where he's come from (the previous episodes) or find out what happens to him afterward, as a result of his descent into evil (the subsequent episodes).

 

[Mister Fandango]

I wouldn't mind seeing a story about a Sith who isn't corrupted and relies on the light side of the force. I mean, there's nothing inherently "evil" about their code, they've just philosophically opposed to the Jedi.

Jedi != Light, just like Sith != Dark.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

there's nothing inherently "evil" about their code,

Of course there is. Their code begins by rejecting peace. Their ultimate aim, according to the code, is "freedom", but it's only achieved through conflict, which gives them strength, power and victory. And what, then, do they do with their victorious strength, power and freedom? Why, seek more conflict, of course (because peace is a lie). It's a predatory code based on pure selfishness and survival of the strongest, most cunning, most powerful without regard to anyone or anything else.

Yeah, nothing inherently evil there ...

 

[Wadjda]

That's arguable, at least. But it doesn't make sense to ignore the fact that Star Wars already has six movies "with a dark side protagonist" - telling the story of a character who grows up to become a Sith - a monster - and is then redeemed. Regardless of your opinion about RotS, it's a film that cannot happen in a vacuum. Its tragedy is in how the youthfully innocent Anakin succumbs to power and evil and ends up slaughtering innocent youths (among countless others). That's pretty damn tragic, if you ask me. But it has no impact at all if you don't know who Anakin is and where he's come from (the previous episodes) or find out what happens to him afterward, as a result of his descent into evil (the subsequent episodes).

There is so much stuff going on besides that and it does not have the atmosphere of a tragedy maybe up till the 2nd half of ROTS.

I wouldn't mind seeing a story about a Sith who isn't corrupted and relies on the light side of the force. I mean, there's nothing inherently "evil" about their code, they've just philosophically opposed to the Jedi.

Jedi != Light, just like Sith != Dark.

A Sith has to use the dark side in order to be accepted as such by the audience.

 

[Mister Fandango]

there's nothing inherently "evil" about their code,

Of course there is. Their code begins by rejecting peace.

They're not rejecting that kind of peace. They're rejecting the type of peace the Jedi practice; removing all passion and emotion from their lives. Hence the second part of that line.

Their ultimate aim, according to the code, is "freedom", but it's only achieved through conflict, which gives them strength, power and victory.

Conflict isn't a part of the code itself, that's your interpretation of it, not an actual part of it.

The strength their gaining is strength of control over the Force, hence it coming from passion which they gain by rejecting serenity. The power they gain from that allows them to defeat their enemies -- who, again, do not have to be the "good guys;" after all, the Jedi fight the Sith all the time, as well as anyone who rejects their philosophy. And through the victory they gain over those that would suppress them -- you know, like slaveowners throughout history, the Americans versus the British, and countless other examples -- they gain the freedom everyone desires.

Again, the code itself isn't evil just like the Jedi code isn't good as there are tons of examples of dark and evil Jedi. Also again, it's just like Jedi can call upon and rely on the dark side of the Force just like the Sith can call upon and rely on the light side.

Yeah, nothing inherently evil there ...

I know.

 

[clint g]

I'd watch it. As a mater of fact, I'm more interested in a Sith movie than what we will probably get

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Again, the code itself isn't evil just like the Jedi code isn't good as there are tons of examples of dark and evil Jedi.

No question there's inherent evil and conflict in the Code. If "peace is a lie" and "there is only passion," then there is no reason and there's nothing but conflict. You yourself say, "The power they gain from that allows them to defeat their enemies." It's about establishing dominance.

Besides, what do you think happens when a Jedi turns "evil" or "dark"? It's a rejection of peace (inner and outer) and an embrace of selfishness, conflict, strength, and the power to achieve the personal freedom to do whatever they want, without regard to the freedom of others. That's the very core of the Sith Code, as it's been posted.

And please, framing the Sith as "freedom fighters" who just what "the freedom everyone desires" (like Americans versus British or emancipation from slavery) is a pretty silly thing to say. The Sith only want personal freedom. The Sith have no problems subjugating others to their will in their efforts to achieve the absolute freedom to do whatever their own strength and power will allow them to do. There's nothing in there about freedom for others (because granting freedom to others would mean giving up a bit of their own personal freedom - it's the whole reason why even "free societies" require laws).

 

[Set Harth]

Also again, it's just like Jedi can call upon and rely on the dark side of the Force

Not really, no. Part of what it means to be a true Jedi is to renounce the dark side. If you're talking about dark Jedi or fallen Jedi, that's different. But a true Jedi will not call upon and rely on the dark side. In fact, a Jedi can't simply use the dark side all the time with impunity and avoid falling due to its corruptive nature, as explained by Yoda.

Jedi != Light, just like Sith != Dark.

Jedi are defined by their avoidance of the dark side, while Sith are defined by their adherence to the dark side.

 

[Mister Fandango]

If you're talking about dark Jedi or fallen Jedi, that's different.

Exactly. Why the fuck can only the Jedi be "fallen" and what's stopping a Sith from being a "Light Sith?" The god damned Jedi do it all the time, and we've seen it happen on screen with Anakin, who often relied on the dark side of the Force to get the job done all while still. being. a fucking. Jedi.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

And .... those were the moments when he was least like a Jedi ... and most like a Sith. Anakin's reliance on the Dark Side as a shortcut was a major reason for his turn to evil. Slaughtering the Tuskens, especially the children, was an act of evil. Just because he was a Jedi at the time doesn't exonerate him from the atrocity, or the evil of his actions. That, by the way, was an act of passion ... a rejection of peace ... and a conflict that helped increase his "power" and "strength". A very Sith-like (in other words, evil) thing to do. Why do you think Palpatine uses Anakin's conflict with Dooku at the beginning of RotS and Luke's conflict with Vader in RotJ as ways to increase the power and Dark Side influence in his targets (Anakin and Luke, respectively)?

Jedi who are "fallen" are acting like the Sith - using the means to justify their selfish ends. A Sith who "falls" (or "rises" would be the more appropriate term) will use peace and selflessness to justify the betterment of all, even at the expense of the self.

It's telling that Anakin's ultimate act of redemption is one of self-sacrifice.

 

[Mister Fandango]

And .... those were the moments when he was least like a Jedi ... and most like a Sith. Anakin's reliance on the Dark Side as a shortcut was a major reason for his turn to evil. Slaughtering the Tuskens, especially the children, was an act of evil. Just because he was a Jedi at the time doesn't exonerate him from the atrocity, or the evil of his actions. That, by the way, was an act of passion ... a rejection of peace ... and a conflict that helped increase his "power" and "strength". A very Sith-like (in other words, evil) thing to do. Why do you think Palpatine uses Anakin's conflict with Dooku at the beginning of RotS and Luke's conflict with Vader in RotJ as ways to increase the power and Dark Side influence in his targets (Anakin and Luke, respectively)?

And yet he was still a Jedi -- which is a title for someone in what is basically a religious organization -- up until the third film. And even then, I don't recall him ever saying he was becoming a Sith; it was just assumed when he became Darth Vader.

Once again, and I realize this is really tough for you to grasp but I have faith in you: Jedi/Sith = titles. Codes = religious philosophies. Individual = varied.

Good Sith can exist just as easily as evil Jedi, just as easily as evil Catholic Priests or good LeVeyan Satanists.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Good Sith can exist just as easily as evil Jedi

You stated, "there's nothing inherently "evil" about [the Sith] code" and yet, an "evil Jedi" is one that is, fundamentally, acting like what is espoused by the "inherent evil" of Sith Code (rejecting peace, gaining strength and power from victory over conflicts with inferior foes to be able to act with personal - but not social - freedom). That's precisely what Anakin did when he used the Dark Side. Titles are worthless and useless in such circumstances. It doesn't matter what Anakin's title was when he slaughtered Tusken children - what mattered is that he allowed his passions, his selfishness, to dictate his actions (just as is dictated by the Sith Code you offered). Anakin was, still, technically, a Jedi when he slaughtered the Tuskens and stormed the Jedi temple in RotS and killed younglings. But in both instances, he was as inherently evil as the Sith Code itself - using his passion, his strength and power, forged from conflict, to preserve his personal freedom to act in any way he saw fit, at the expense of the freedom and lives of others, particularly children. Furthermore, when Dooku fell from the Jedi order, he used the Dark Side and the Clone Wars to increase his own power ("my powers are beyond yours, now back down"). He thought nothing of killing Jedi on Geonosis or countless being across the galaxy to achieve his own ends.

Or, in other words, acting on the inherently evil precepts of the Sith Code.

The only "good Sith" we've seen is in RotJ when Anakin sacrificed himself to save Luke (and the galaxy). Which, since his turn in RotS, is the moment when he was acting most like a Jedi.