• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers The Acolyte

I realize "self-control" is not commonly considered a trait the Dark Side of the Force develops, but I'm pretty sure under 99% of circumstances, a Sith, Dark Jedi, or even an ornery teenager can keep themselves from thinking about the things that make them angriest in the universe and hating as hard as they've ever hated while in the presence of someone who'd react negatively that kind of display.
If I were Anakin and holding a crystal in the presence of Mace and Yoda who refuse to let me date, refused to let me go rescue my mother from slavery, and would leave me to rotting and smuggling spice to make a living the moment I try to leave the Jedi, I'd be seething with hatred and that crystal would turn red faster than the Millennium Falcon's top speed.

I assume the same goes with Palpatine. You say you're a "student of the human condition", but don't seem to understand that hatred never goes away. Even now in my life there are just some coworkers or relatives that I can never forget did me harm, either directly or indirectly (obviously not to the point that legal action needs to be taken but things my parents told me as a child--mainly indoctrinating me in the Christian religion that did me so much harm in life--that I blindly followed that permanently affected my life negatively, etc.). That hatred never goes away. Not for a day, not for a minute, not for an instant. I feel it now as I type this. I feel it when I see them. I try NOT to mention it every chance I get. The pain and anguish and bitterness never stop. You feel it all the time. I'm not going out chopping people with lightsabers or weapons or whatever and never will because of my strong moral code, but that pain never leaves at all. I feel it every second even when I'm concentrating on something else. The pain manifests in my dreams. As long as I live (barring brain damage, memory loss, dementia, etc.) I will never forget it, never forget the harm religion caused to my life (I don't want to detail in a public forum but you can DM me if you really want to know) and will live with that till the day I die.

You're "something of a student of the human condition", do you understand and can try to understand what it is to feel everything I just wrote? Well if not, maybe you learned something new.
 
I called the "bleeding lightsaber" business as nonsense literally when the Ahsoka novel came out. LFL completely changed their stance on this, saying "Lightsabers are not mood rings" when some casual fans in ROTS asked why Anakin's lightsaber didn't turn red. Now suddenly they turn red if a darksider happens to be touching the crystal (never mind that again such a damaged lightsaber with a crystal sticking out shouldn't even work). Suddenly lightsabers are mood rings.

ALSO, the retcon drastically alters everything. If kyber crystals are mood rings that can bleed red JUST BY BEING HELD, why don't they use that as a dark side test?

Mace: Anakin, we're concerned because while you were protecting Senator Amidala, you detoured to Tatooine, we heard your mother died, and Yoda sensed something horrible happened.

Anakin: It was nothing, I was just upset at how she died.

Mace: Hold this kyber crystal.

Anakin: Sure. Hey, what--it's turning red! Wait I can expl--

Mace: Get outta here, dark side scum.

(also)

Mace: Chancellor Palpatine, the Jedi Order would like to present you this gift of a kyber crystal. You know how valuable these are. Here, why don't you take it right now.

Palpatine: I will always cherish this gift from my dear friends in the Je--what? It's turning red! You--you....

Yoda: Found our Sith Lord, we have.
This is all your interpretation, not what was established on screen. We don’t know all the rules that determine when a crystal bleeds. Nothing on screen establishes that “any crystal will bleed when touched by a dark sider,” only that one crystal bled in one situation. “Any crystal will bleed when touched by a dark sider” is just a rule you made up so you could criticize your own rule for being stupid and treat it as a flaw in the show.
 
This is all your interpretation, not what was established on screen. We don’t know all the rules that determine when a crystal bleeds. Nothing on screen establishes that “any crystal will bleed when touched by a dark sider,” only that one crystal bled in one situation. “Any crystal will bleed when touched by a dark sider” is just a rule you made up so you could criticize your own rule for being stupid and treat it as a flaw in the show.
I mean I maintain that kyber bleeding is silly and inconsistent but I just don't have the strength to argue right now. I expended way more emotional energy and angst than I originally intended or meant to in my previous post.

If we go to Star Wars canon, we know in the Ahsoka novel that Ahsoka knew that lightsaber crystals were bled, thus her healing an inquisitor's lightsaber. We know from the Darth Vader comic that Vader DOES NOT know about kyber bleeding, as Palpatine literally has to tell him about it.

So it's strange that a padawan with unfinished training like Ahsoka knows about kyber bleeding but her own master who was literally on the Council doesn't.

Let's not pretend the new canon is perfect. For example, the Barash Vow is first mentioned in Darth Vader (2017) issue 2, where a computer tells Vader that over 14,000 Jedi have taken the Barash Vow "since the founding of the Order", i.e. the implication is that the Vow originated around the same time as the order did 25,000 years before the movies. As such 14,000 Jedi seems a reasonable number, like 1 Jedi taking the vow every 2 years (although that still seems like a rather high number for something implied to be rather rare).

But High Republic: The Blade mucks with all this by saying that the Barash Vow was created in 382 BBY, meaning that over 14,000 Jedi took the vow in 363 years. We now have some absurdly high number of an average of 39 Jedi taking the vow EVERY YEAR until Revenge of the Sith.
 
I mean I maintain that kyber bleeding is silly and inconsistent but I just don't have the strength to argue right now. I expended way more emotional energy and angst than I originally intended or meant to in my previous post.

If we go to Star Wars canon, we know in the Ahsoka novel that Ahsoka knew that lightsaber crystals were bled, thus her healing an inquisitor's lightsaber. We know from the Darth Vader comic that Vader DOES NOT know about kyber bleeding, as Palpatine literally has to tell him about it.

So it's strange that a padawan with unfinished training like Ahsoka knows about kyber bleeding but her own master who was literally on the Council doesn't.

Let's not pretend the new canon is perfect. For example, the Barash Vow is first mentioned in Darth Vader (2017) issue 2, where a computer tells Vader that over 14,000 Jedi have taken the Barash Vow "since the founding of the Order", i.e. the implication is that the Vow originated around the same time as the order did 25,000 years before the movies. As such 14,000 Jedi seems a reasonable number, like 1 Jedi taking the vow every 2 years (although that still seems like a rather high number for something implied to be rather rare).

But High Republic: The Blade mucks with all this by saying that the Barash Vow was created in 382 BBY, meaning that over 14,000 Jedi took the vow in 363 years. We now have some absurdly high number of an average of 39 Jedi taking the vow EVERY YEAR until Revenge of the Sith.

Nothing on screen establishes that OSHA knew about bleeding or did it consciously, only that it happened. Nothing on screen establishes that Sol didn’t know about it. Again, all you’re doing is making assumptions, complaining about your own assumptions, and crowing about it like you’ve scored some kind of victory against the show.
 
crowing about it like you’ve scored some kind of victory against the show.


No I'm not doing that. I actually like the show. I watched it. If I really hated it, I'd not have finished it the way I cold turkey refused to watch Lower Decks after Episode 5 (and that awful crossover in SNW reinforced to me that I made the right decision).

Is ANY type of criticism allowed for the Acolyte at all? Aren't you going a bit too far?
 
Let's not pretend the new canon is perfect
Done.


So it's strange that a padawan with unfinished training like Ahsoka knows about kyber bleeding but her own master who was literally on the Council doesn't.
One of the interesting aspects of Ahsoka, and something I find disappointing with her appearance was the repeating of a lot of Jedi tradition even though she had learned something in Rebels.
 
If I were Anakin and holding a crystal in the presence of Mace and Yoda who refuse to let me date, refused to let me go rescue my mother from slavery, and would leave me to rotting and smuggling spice to make a living the moment I try to leave the Jedi, I'd be seething with hatred and that crystal would turn red faster than the Millennium Falcon's top speed.

If Anakin were unable to resist strangling Yoda or Mace Windu on sight, I don't think he would've made it that far through Jedi training, on account of repeatedly attempting to murder a Master of the Council with his little bare child-hands, for reasons ranging from sympathizable to downright petty.

If you hear on the news about a teenager killing an authority figure over a dating rule, that news story usually includes a parade of escalating red flags that went ignored. Anakin Skywalker was a hot-headed little psycho, but even by those standards, being angry enough to murder someone in cold blood on sight for being associated with a vow of chastity he took is an extremely abnormal reaction.

You're "something of a student of the human condition", do you understand and can try to understand what it is to feel everything I just wrote? Well if not, maybe you learned something new.

You've clearly worked yourself up, and I feel bad kicking you when you're down, but I can't just leave it there.

However angry you feel as a baseline, that's not kyber-bleedingly angry. The most angry you've ever felt in your life, total wrathful rage, heart pounding like you ran a marathon, adrenaline stabbing down your veins like ice, muscles so tense it feels like holding down a horse keeping yourself from punching the nearest object (or person) until it breaks or your hand does, and doing either would give you instant relief, and probably no small amount of shame... that's getting closer, but probably still not there, because they don't have TrekBBS in prison.

Exhausting, physically unsustainable rage. There's been scientific research on how long a human can continuously sustain an extreme emotional state, and it's a lot shorter than you seem to think. Like, unless your resting pulse rate is a hundred and fifty and you can never safely operate heavy machinery, you're not describing what you think you are. You wrote a very eloquent post about how you're always as angry as someone who was actively murdering her beloved mentor and couldn't articulate more than two words, and was only able to express herself through an act of physical violence. You see the contradiction here.

Osha had a moral code too, you know. She felt guilty because she accidentally killed a giant bug. And yet, she ended up in a place where she couldn't draw on her ethics, or morals, or a basic sense of right and wrong. Her rage shrunk her entire reality down to how Sol had hurt her, and how easy it was to make him stop, and that she could just keep squeezing harder and harder and then he'd stop hurting her forever. It's not like she killed Sol right then because she could get away with it, since there were no Jedi witnesses. She did it because nothing and no one could've stopped her, because she was out of her mind with rage.

This wasn't "mood ring" stuff, she was the angriest it is humanly possible to be. It's not really a "mood" ring if it only changes color at your one lifetime peak of any given emotion.
 
Last edited:
If Anakin were unable to resist strangling Yoda or Mace Windu on sight, I don't think he would've made it that far through Jedi training, on account of repeatedly attempting to murder a Master of the Council with his little bare child-hands, for reasons ranging from sympathizable to downright petty.

If you hear on the news about a teenager killing an authority figure over a dating rule, that news story usually includes a parade of escalating red flags that went ignored. Anakin Skywalker was a hot-headed little psycho, but even by those standards, being angry enough to murder someone in cold blood on sight for being associated with a vow of chastity he took is an extremely abnormal reaction.



You've clearly worked yourself up, and I feel bad kicking you when you're down, but I can't just leave it there.

However angry you feel as a baseline, that's not kyber-bleedingly angry. The most angry you've ever felt in your life, total wrathful rage, heart pounding like you ran a marathon, adrenaline stabbing down your veins like ice, muscles so tense it feels like holding down a horse keeping yourself from punching the nearest object (or person) until it breaks or your hand does, and doing either would give you instant relief, and probably no small amount of shame... that's getting closer, but probably still not there, because they don't have TrekBBS in prison.

Exhausting, physically unsustainable rage. There's been scientific research on how long a human can continuously sustain an extreme emotional state, and it's a lot shorter than you seem to think. Like, unless your resting pulse rate is a hundred and fifty and you can never safely operate heavy machinery, you're not describing what you think you are. You wrote a very eloquent post about how you're always as angry as someone who was actively murdering her beloved mentor and couldn't articulate more than two words, and was only able to express herself through an act of physical violence. You see the contradiction here.

Osha had a moral code too, you know. She felt guilty because she accidentally killed a giant bug. And yet, she ended up in a place where she couldn't draw on her ethics, or morals, or a basic sense of right and wrong. Her rage shrunk her entire reality down to how Sol had hurt her, and how easy it was to make him stop, and that it was so easy to just keep squeezing harder and harder and then he'd stop hurting her forever. It's not like she killed Sol right then because she could get away with it, since there were no Jedi witnesses. She did it because nothing and no one could've stopped her, because she was out of her mind with rage.

This wasn't "mood ring" stuff, she was the angriest it is humanly possible to be. It's not really a "mood" ring if it only changes color at your one lifetime peak of any given emotion.
EDIT: I don't agree but I think me bringing in real world points will just derail things so let's just agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Rage.

People use anger for far too many things.

I recently finished the Wilson translation of The Iliad, and one of the points she made in the translator's notes was the different words for different types of anger, starting with one that opens the poem:

The word “mēnis” is elsewhere used of the anger of gods, not humans: Only the fury of Achilles, the mortal son of a goddess, is deadly enough in its consequences, for his own side as well as for the enemy, to qualify as “wrath,” not merely “anger.” “...Mēnis” is not ordinary anger or normal human rage. Angry men in battle kill a few other men, if they are skillful, brave and lucky. Only divinely backed “wrath” could cause the level of destruction that Achilles brings about.... (Source)​
The conclusion of her full introduction comes to mind with this discussion, on the higher purpose of drama and storytelling in general. Basic aspects of the human condition are universal, and the world we inhabit is complex and, at times, inexplicable. Stories allow use to explore events and emotions in a safe way, paradoxically by heightening them beyond the everyday context, and conforming them to structures of cause and effect, thematic and narrative unity. It let's us perceive life in a way that has meaning, and not just as a bunch of stuff that keeps happening one thing after another. This distinction doesn't apply quite so much in the age of serialization, but I once heard the fundamental difference between a movie and a television show is a movie will generally be about the most important event in the main character's life, while a TV show is necessarily less transformative to its main character because it's about something that happens to them about two dozen times a year, over and over again. Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs is going to go through a lot more solving a crime than David Caruso in a random episode of CSI: Miami.

Whether it was effective or not is debatable, and will vary with the critic and the audience, the events of The Acolyte were meant to be emotionally epic in scale. "Apocalyptic" might even be the better term, with its sense of "revelation." While it would ideally elicit sympathy and pathos and could be analogized (loosely!) to events in your own life, I don't get how you can look at it and go, "This story of mistaken identity, murder, hidden failure festering into disaster, revenge, betrayal, and wrath is pretty everyday stuff, I don't see how this could be taken as unusually affecting for the people involved." A lady split a baby in two, turned into a smoke monster, and got stabbed by a man who then adopted her kid! This is not "For me, it was Tuesday"-level stuff.
 
Is ANY type of criticism allowed for the Acolyte at all? Aren't you going a bit too far?
I think it would be a mistake to assume that just because someone argued with you on this one point that it means that no criticism will be allowed.

Here's some criticism of the show...it was boring a lot of the time, quite stupid in places, and felt like the entire (stretched) plot was mostly just buying time until the "big reveal" which turned out to be completely underwhelming. Oh, and an ending which seemed lame and perfunctory. :)
 
I think it would be a mistake to assume that just because someone argued with you on this one point that it means that no criticism will be allowed.
When the quote in question starts going into bizarre hyperbole about me (specifically) claiming that I'm "crowing about it like you’ve scored some kind of victory against the show" then I'm going to have to assume that some personal offense was taken of my criticism of a tv show (and I didn't criticize the poster, they were the ones that started saying I was "crowing", I never said a word about them).
 
Mind you that the lightsabers were supposed to change color depending on who held them as far back as Return of the Jedi. When Vader ignites Luke's lightsaber on Endor, it was supposed to turn red. But at some point, either Lucas decided against doing it, or the effects crew wasn't told, or it just didn't look right on screen (maybe it would confuse the audience), and it was dropped.

Then for Revenge of the Sith, Anakin's saber was supposed to turn red at some point, either during Order 66 (presumably when he ignited it in front of the younglings, since that would be the most shocking thing), or by the time he got to Mustafar. The problem was that the red blade would get lost the lava backgrounds of the planet, so that idea was dropped again. Plus in some versions of the duel, Obi-wan and Anakin swapped sabers for a bit. I don't know if Obi-wan's saber was suppose to turn red when Anakin was holding it or not, or if that even came up during the filming. But that probably would have confused people even more that the quick shots of them holding the other's sabers with no context in the final product is today.

Then Ahsoka gets white lightsabers, and it is decided to tell a tale of her purifying an Inquisitor's red saber crystals. Her connecting with the crystals probably gave her an idea of what the Dark Siders had done to them, so she did what she could to heal the kybers.

Since that was done, it was decided that turning a crystal red (bleeding it) would be an effort to pour in ones hate and anger and rage (and/or other strong generally negative emotions) into the crystal, dominating it, would turn it red. As seen with Osha, it does not need to be a conscious effort to bleed the crystal, but it does have to be intense. Given the cases we have seen so far, direct intentional bleeding can be done without fully touching the crystal as the user is focusing on it. But unintentionally bleeding seems to require physical contact with the crystal...and possibly the crystal being marginally accepting to the user bleeding it. Given that Osha was Sol's Padawan, and that it has probably felt what Sol did for over a decade and a half, it might be sympathetic to Osha and thus easier to bleed, having already experience the pain from Sol. Most times we see someone bleeding a crystal it is resisting because it was taken from its master by force, or the user's reasoning for bleeding the crystal is not really sympathetic to the crystal, since the dark sider is trying to dominate it.
 
When the quote in question starts going into bizarre hyperbole about me (specifically) claiming that I'm "crowing about it like you’ve scored some kind of victory against the show" then I'm going to have to assume that some personal offense was taken of my criticism of a tv show (and I didn't criticize the poster, they were the ones that started saying I was "crowing", I never said a word about them).
When someone is personally offended by you criticizing a TV show, the best revenge is to keep on criticizing it. ;)
 
If the Dark Side causes Kyber crystals to emit a red beam, why was the Death Star's laser green?
Because 1) the Death Star is just a machine powered by a very large reactor, not some apparatus of the dark side itself 2) the crystals used for it's weapon weren't bled because; why would they be?

That said, some of them may have been of the crimson persuasion. If you look at the beams in the ignition sequence they're not all-green, but green surrounded by red rings. So there could be some red kyber in there somewhere.

See Also: the Temple of Malachor. That energy wave was clearly pink/purple, not red. So it's reasonable to assume even the ancient the Sith never bothered bleeding kybers for their superweapons, only their personal weapons. Which makes sense since after all the whole idea is that they're making the weapon *theirs* by specifically infusing it with their own personal pain, rage, and hatred. It doesn't make Sith sabers more powerful, just more suited to that specific individual. At the scale of a super-weapon that would have no discernable advantage.
 
Now suddenly they turn red if a darksider happens to be touching the crystal
You've always had to be touching the crystal, or focus the force into it to bleed (or purify) it. The show didn't create that.

Osha was very angry and that anger went into the crystal that was touching her hand. It's as simple as that. No rules were changed.

Well one thing they did change/ignore was the crystal releasing a wave of energy when bled (which happens in the Vader comic and Jedi Survivor), but that would have ruined the moment.

Spoilers for Jedi Survivor but
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Because 1) the Death Star is just a machine powered by a very large reactor, not some apparatus of the dark side itself 2) the crystals used for it's weapon weren't bled because; why would they be?
Pretty sure that was a rhetorical question.
 
Last edited:
If the Dark Side causes Kyber crystals to emit a red beam, why was the Death Star's laser green?
Palpatine: Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station! Fire at will commander!

(Rebel ship is destroyed with a red Death Star superlaser)

Luke: Leia told me during Alderaan's destruction that Death Stars fire green superlasers.

Palpatine: Well I wasn't on board at that time, but I'm here now, I'm really mad at the Rebels, and the red beams reflect this Death Star's kyber bleeding from my hatred of them.

Luke: Well if Vader's presence at Alderaan's destruction wasn't enough to turn the superlaser red, that means there's still good in him!

Palpatine: Now that's not what I was implying at all, you little--- :mad:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top