Star Wars Star Wars Discussion Thread - LET THE PAST D-! Oh, wait, nevermind

[TyrantTriumphant]

In my opinion, Star Wars is a big universe with room for a lot of stories. Having a gritty show like Andor does not diminish the heroic story of Luke.

And while Star Wars is not 40k and they do and should have different tones, too much focus on telling the same kinds of stories can be harmful to a series. For instance, in the EU after Palpatine got killed the rebellion became the New Republic and had to wage a 15 year war against the remaining fragments of the Empire. But for some reason these stories generally were "plucky underdogs against big evil empire" despite the New Republic having an actual military and navy and the Imperial warlords being divided and ground down by civil wars and rebellions.

Another much worse example is found in the Disney movies. Where the heroes, despite having defeated the Imperial remnants in one year and in a far more lopsided manor than the EU, and against enemies who had been forced to run off into the middle of nowhere and rebuild from scratch, were once again forced into the role of plucky underdog.

Essentially because the writers focused on maintaining the tone of the series at the expense of internal consistency.

Heroic Traditional stories are good. I personally enjoyed the original trilogy and feel that including the themes that Andor had would have diminished the movies. Not because I don't like those themes or that they have no place in Star Wars, but because they were outside of the scope of the particular story that the original Star Wars was trying to tell.

But there is room for other themes to be explored in other Star Wars works. Plenty of other franchises branch out into different themes, 40k for example producing the Ciaphas Cain books that are much less dark than their usual content, and do not suffer for it. Star Wars is no different.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Hero's don't inspire if they do not feel like they are at least superficially relatable to the common person

The history of heroes from Hercules to King Arthur to Beowulf would suggest the opposite. Heroes have to be better than the common man in some way. Braver, better skilled, possessing of better abilities. After all if they couldn't do anything more than you or me they could hardly inspire us to be more than we are.

and most people are not going to relate to people with superpowers, even if it might make good cinema back in the day.

The success of superhero films as well as comics would suggest that most people do relate with people with extraordinary powers beyond mortal kin. Indeed Batman is likely the odd outlier in terms of popularity while lacking any explicit super powers.

Mundanes need hero's too, and hero's they can actually relate to, not some super-special bullshit.

Well you're starting from a flawed premise which is forcing you into an unnecessary binary choice. Real world people can be inspired by Superman and Batman, Spider-man or the Punisher. There is nothing forcing a real world person to identify as a "mundane" or prohibiting their choice of heroes.

The existence of Harry Potter doesn't preclude the existence of other, more mundane heroes or their stories. It simply means that maybe the Harry Potter universe isn't the best fit for such heroes and they should be spun off into their own thing instead of fighting against the tone and themes of HP. Or at least accepting that such stories will likely always be less popular and more peripheral to the core fandom who want wizards and magic in their wizards and magic universe.

People need to stop trying to find an escape from the real world, and fiction that prepares people for how bad shit is and what nasty sort of shit usually has to happen to fight oppressive govs is stuff that helps prepare the youth for the future they likely face. The sooner kids realize that the world is not a nice place, never has been, and that 'morally clean hero's' are almost non-existent, the better prepared they are for later in life.

You see I take the opposite tack. Clear cut black and white morality tales aren't important because the world is sunshine and puppy dogs. They are important for impressing upon the most impressionable of our society what good and evil *are*. If you teach them there is no right or wrong, just shades of expediency, and the world sucks and always will that seems more likely to produce the Galactic Empire than the New Republic.

 

[Skallagrim]

Thing is, it isn't like cynical and dark can't work in Star Wars. I mean, just look at Revenge of the Sith and Empire Strikes Back. Star Wars can go to some grim places whilst still remaining itself.

Absolutely. Of course, RotS is explicitly a prequel to a film called A New Hope, so it can end in tragedy while still retaining the confident assurance that everything will eventually be made right (and it explicitly ends with a shot visually calling back... well, forward... to that point). And ESB is by its nature the middle part of a trilogy (and after the success of the preceding film, there was no doubt for Lucas that there would be three films), so it could 'safely' end on the darkest hour for our heroes... which fits the classical dramatic structure Lucas was going for.

Kurtz and Kasdan wanted RotJ to end with Luke turning evil. They and Ford wanted Han to die. Lucas (correctly) told them to fuck off. Because (I paraphrase) "that's not the kind of story I want to tell". Whatever the man's faults, he certainly understands the core of his own creation. It's a story about hope. A fairy-tale is space, with an optimistic and "morally sound" message and tone. It has dark moments and passages (as many of the old stories that informed it also do!), but it's optimistic and hopeful overall.

It can be dark, but it shouldn't ever be cynical.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Personally I'd say the problem with modern fiction is the exact opposite. We, the consumer, are repeatedly blasted that you can only like a character if it superficially resembles you. If it conforms to your race, class, orientation ect.

Where as before heroes were meant more to inspire us rather than conform to us. So we can identify with Luke not because we have magical powers that elevate us above our peers but because of the universal traits of his heroism and his journey. His powers are a tool to that end, nothing more.


There is nothing "false' about Luke being a hero. Or Harry Potter. Or Superman. Heroism isn't defined by how closely said character adheres to our humdrum reality and if it was, if your potential was so limited, this world would be a much worse place for it.

I totally agree on Luke, harry potter eh, not so much. one of the things that soured me on the later harry potter books was that he lost much of what made him relatable in the first place. He was a bright-eyed fish out of water having to face the consequences of the sins of history. by books 4-7 he (and honestly the rest of the golden trio) was essentially rockstars and beyond killing the big bad, very little was actually done to change the status quo (This is especially hit home with the curse child) Part of the heroes journy is being the shining light in the darkness, being the force for change Luke Skywallker (Before Disney got ahold of him) rebuilt the Jedi from the ground up and learned from the mistakes of the previous order, The Fellowship of the ring, conquered Morder and brought about a golden age to middle-earth by making Gondor the major Superpower of the world again.

Harry and friends defeated Voldemort...and it's basically business as usual.

If the three groups were the punk bands of their time Harry and friends would be the first ones to sell out to the corrupt establishment.

 

[Bacle]

Which is why Hawkeye is the most popular Avenger by far, right?

To be clear: it's not that I don't agree with your basic point about "relatability" being a good thing; but you do use a very narrow view of what makes a character "relatable". You look at what powers they have, but that's not what makes characters relatable. It's their personality and the emotional impact of what they're going through. By your logic, films about heroic pilots should be "unrelatable" to 99% of viewers, because they're not ace pilots themselves-- so how the fuck can these "mundanes", these Joe-schmoes who've never even flown a plane, possibly relate?

You draw the line at super-powers, but that's an artificial distinction. Being an ace pilot is a super-power. Being a genius scientist or a brilliant detective or an expert neurosurgeon or a stellar Michelin chef... those are all super-powers that most of us don't have. Yet we can all relate to characters in those roles, if they're in a good story.





That's all very interesting, but it's not Star Wars. If you try to make SW into this, because it's what you want more of... then you're no better than SJWs who put the things they want more of into SW. In both cases, it's an attempt to alter the thing to suit your personal preferences, instead of respecting the thing for what it is.

That's an issue we're dealing with in media a lot right now, and I can think of no example where the people doing the altering were in the right. They should've left the pre-existing thing alone, and they should've made a new thing of their own.

And if you really want a cynical, dark, edgy sci-fi drama full of horrible things and bleak lessons about reality... watch Dark Mirror or something. It exists. And it's about as unlike Star Wars as anything can possibly be, while still nominally existing in the same broader genre.

The name is literally 'Star Wars'; the only reason we think it's not supposed to be dark and cynical is because the OT only followed the Skywalker family, and more or less ignored the larger implications of the setting.

Also, you call mundane attributes super-powers, just for rhetorical purposes, which is rather pathetic; being a surgeon or pilot does not mean you have a superpower.

The history of heroes from Hercules to King Arthur to Beowulf would suggest the opposite. Heroes have to be better than the common man in some way. Braver, better skilled, possessing of better abilities. After all if they couldn't do anything more than you or me they could hardly inspire us to be more than we are.


The success of superhero films as well as comics would suggest that most people do relate with people with extraordinary powers beyond mortal kin. Indeed Batman is likely the odd outlier in terms of popularity while lacking any explicit super powers.


Well you're starting from a flawed premise which is forcing you into an unnecessary binary choice. Real world people can be inspired by Superman and Batman, Spider-man or the Punisher. There is nothing forcing a real world person to identify as a "mundane" or prohibiting their choice of heroes.

The existence of Harry Potter doesn't preclude the existence of other, more mundane heroes or their stories. It simply means that maybe the Harry Potter universe isn't the best fit for such heroes and they should be spun off into their own thing instead of fighting against the tone and themes of HP. Or at least accepting that such stories will likely always be less popular and more peripheral to the core fandom who want wizards and magic in their wizards and magic universe.


You see I take the opposite tack. Clear cut black and white morality tales aren't important because the world is sunshine and puppy dogs. They are important for impressing upon the most impressionable of our society what good and evil *are*. If you teach them there is no right or wrong, just shades of expediency, and the world sucks and always will that seems more likely to produce the Galactic Empire than the New Republic.

1) Hero's no longer need to be better than the common man, and frankly usually the best hero's are the ones closest to the common man (Batman/Iron Man/Ant Man) that the difference between when those stories were created and the modern day.

Pretending good and evil are always easy to see and tell apart, or that good guys cannot do bad things or vice versa, is one of the major failings of modern fiction.

It's also why 'hero's' like Malcolm Reynolds are more common now than morally pure ones like Luke Skywalker; people can actually relate to Mal more than Luke.

2) I would point to Tony Stark/Iron Man, The Falcon, Ant Man, etc; there are plenty of hero's with tech help, not super powers, that are popular and increasing in popularity.

3) Sure, people can be inspired by both mundane and super powered heros; doesn't change how infantilizing many stories about superpowers are in how they treat mundanes and the audience.

4) Don't try to force idealized views of the world on kids, that only hinders their growth and development for the sake of adults wanting to pretend the world is nicer than it is. Worry less about idealized bullshit, and worry more about introducing unrealistic expectations and views on children.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Don't try to force idealized views of the world on kids, that only hinders their growth and development for the sake of adults wanting to pretend the world is nicer than it is

Have you ever thought that maybe the world is how it is because people don't have idealizes anymore beyond consume and conquer?

 

[Skallagrim]

Pretending good and evil are always easy to see and tell apart, or that good guys cannot do bad things or vice versa, is one of the major failings of modern fiction.

"I wanted to make a kid's film that would strengthen contemporary mythology and introduce a kind of basic morality. Nobody was saying the very basic things; they were dealing in the abstract. Everybody was forgetting to tell the kids, 'Hey, this right and this is wrong.'"
-- G. Lucas, 1983

The guy who made Star Wars considered the exact opposite of what you mention to be the big failure in media. (And he still considers that to be the case, as can be hear or read in many interviews; this may be the one thing he's never changed his mind about. Because it's the heart of his story...)

Which means that this--

the only reason we think it's not supposed to be dark and cynical is because the OT only followed the Skywalker family

--is a major misconception. You're mistaking your own preferences about what the story could alternatively be (that is: what you can turn it into) for what it actually is. As I said: that's what SJWs also do, when they prioritise their own preferences over respecting the material. It's not a good move, and it won't improve the work.

Write a fanfic, or make an original work. Much better.

 

[Bacle]

Have you ever thought that maybe the world is how it is because people don't have idealizes anymore beyond consume and conquer?

No, the world is as it is because too many Baby Boomers were misled about the realities of the world by their parents, and then tried to pass on those illusions to their kids, who are living through all those illusions falling apart around them and suffering for it.

The fewer illusions about the world children are taught by parents, mostly for the parent's sake not the kids, the better off they will be in the long run.

"I wanted to make a kid's film that would strengthen contemporary mythology and introduce a kind of basic morality. Nobody was saying the very basic things; they were dealing in the abstract. Everybody was forgetting to tell the kids, 'Hey, this right and this is wrong.'"
-- G. Lucas, 1983

The guy who made Star Wars considered the exact opposite of what you mention to be the big failure in media. (And he still considers that to be the case, as can be hear or read in many interviews; this may be the one thing he's never changed his mind about. Because it's the heart of his story...)

Which means that this--



--is a major misconception. You're mistaking your own preferences about what the story could alternatively be (that is: what you can turn it into) for what it actually is. As I said: that's what SJWs also do, when they prioritise their own preferences over respecting the material. It's not a good move, and it won't improve the work.

Write a fanfic, or make an original work. Much better.

Why should only the Left be able to modify and want to complain about issues with works of fiction?

Because not being willing to modify works of fiction as part of a larger cultural fight is part of why the Right keeps falling behind.

And Lucas is a Leftist after all, who's only upset with woke shit when it interferes with his vision or money flow, and sold SW to Disney in the first place because he was tired of dealing with the IP.

So trying to lean on Lucas for this, given what he did years after that quote...Lucas sold out long ago, why is his work sacred for being modified or complained about by us, when the Left is already doing it and hijacking the shit anyway?

I was talking about Andor specifically because it was a breath of fresh fucking air, that didn't feel like it was designed for woke 12 years olds, but for adult OT/PT fans capable of understanding nuance and subtlety.

 

[Skallagrim]

Why should only the Left be able to modify and want to complain about issues with works of fiction?

Because not being willing to modify works of fiction as part of a larger cultural fight is part of why the Right keeps falling behind.

And Lucas is a Leftist after all, who's only upset with woke shit when it interferes with his vision or money flow, and sold SW to Disney in the first place because he was tired of dealing with the IP.

So trying to lean on Lucas for this, given what he did years after that quote...Lucas sold out long ago, why is his work sacred for being modified or complained about by us, when the Left is already doing it and hijacking the shit anyway?

I was talking about Andor specifically because it was a breath of fresh fucking air, that didn't feel like it was designed for woke 12 years olds, but for adult OT/PT fans capable of understanding nuance and subtlety.

"Why should only the Sith be allowed to use the Dark Side? That's why we lose! I'm going to use the Dark Side against them! I don't care if the founder of the Jedi Order himself told us all that it's a terribly stupid idea! He's not perfect anyway, and only perfect people can contradict me! No, I don't care that every time my idea has been tried, it led to disaster! I know better than anyone else!"

-- @Bacle, if dropped into the actual setting of SW, no doubt



(But seriously, don't you see how wrong-headed your line of reasoning is? The worst part here is that nobody here is telling you that the kind of story you want shouldn't be made. Only that Star Wars simply isn't that kind of story.)

 

[Bacle]

"Why should only the Sith be allowed to use the Dark Side? That's why we lose! I'm going to use the Dark Side against them! I don't care if the founder of the Jedi Order himself told us all that it's a terribly stupid idea! He's not perfect anyway, and only perfect people can contradict me! No, I don't care that every time my idea has been tried, it led to distaster! I know better than anyone else!"

-- @Bacle, if dropped into the actual setting of SW, no doubt



(But seriously, don't you see how wrong-header your line of reasoning is? The worst part here is that nobody here is telling you that the kind of story you want houldn't be made. Only that Star Wars simply isn't that kind of story.)

No, drop me in Star Wars, and I'm heading for the Chiss Ascendancy as soon as I can find a ship capable of that trip.

The Chiss Force Users are about the only sane ones, and that's only because of how differently the Chiss treat them, as strategic assets, not as cult followers.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

1) Hero's no longer need to be better than the common man, and frankly usually the best hero's are the ones closest to the common man (Batman/Iron Man/Ant Man) that the difference between when those stories were created and the modern day.

You are kind of all over the place. On one hand you blast modern story trends, even when said trends originate well before anything we could classify as "modern", but you also champion "modern trends" as being superior to what came before.

4) Don't try to force idealized views of the world on kids, that only hinders their growth and development for the sake of adults wanting to pretend the world is nicer than it is. Worry less about idealized bullshit, and worry more about introducing unrealistic expectations and views on children.

No, the world is as it is because too many Baby Boomers were misled about the realities of the world by their parents, and then tried to pass on those illusions to their kids, who are living through all those illusions falling apart around them and suffering for it.

I'd counter the world is the way it is, among other reasons of course, is because the Baby Boomers were fed a steady diet of moral relativism. That there wasn't good guys and bad guys just shades of greys and the NVA fighting to impose a tyrannical totalitarian government was no different than American GI's fighting to oppose that.

That they didn't grew up with an idealized view of how the world *should be*, that they should strive to make it into, and so instead sought their own promised idealism in leftist bullcrap which is based around ends justify the frequently fuzzy and nebulous means. Just like the European people turned to fascism, socialism and communism the generation prior for stability and order as the old systems had collapsed on the killing fields of WWI and the Bearded God-killers like Darwin*.

* Just to be clear I'm not saying Darwin shouldn't have done his origin of species, man's knowledge should always be expanding, but it did help set off trends we're still feeling the repercussions to today.

 

[Earl]

The Chiss Force Users are about the only sane ones, and that's only because of how differently the Chiss treat them, as strategic assets, not as cult followers.

There used up and spat out by a goverment which cant give a fuck about them you mean? Yeah. Fun times. Those guys are the real geniuses!

 

[Bacle]

You are kind of all over the place. On one hand you blast modern story trends, even when said trends originate well before anything we could classify as "modern", but you also champion "modern trends" as being superior to what came before.



I'd counter the world is the way it is, among other reasons of course, is because the Baby Boomers were fed a steady diet of moral relativism. That there wasn't good guys and bad guys just shades of greys and the NVA fighting to impose a tyrannical totalitarian government was no different than American GI's fighting to oppose that.

That they didn't grew up with an idealized view of how the world *should be*, that they should strive to make it into, and so instead sought their own promised idealism in leftist bullcrap which is based around ends justify the frequently fuzzy and nebulous means. Just like the European people turned to fascism, socialism and communism the generation prior for stability and order as the old systems had collapsed on the killing fields of WWI and the Bearded God-killers like Darwin*.

* Just to be clear I'm not saying Darwin shouldn't have done his origin of species, man's knowledge should always be expanding, but it did help set off trends we're still feeling the repercussions to today.

The Baby Boomers parents, be they 'Silent' or 'Greatest' gen aged, fed them a lot of illusions about the world as part of Cold War propaganda in the 50's/60's.

The pre-Star Wars 70's were in a state where Lucas felt like making that comment about them, largely because Veitnam collapsed many of the illusions of the more hippie type Boomers, while on the Right the Veitnam War got covered in a 'We didn't lose in the field!' copium layer and twisted DoD pride/shame issues that have affected recruiting ever since. There is a reason Veitnam was the last time anyone used the draft in the US, and it's because the war caused a lot of American society to cast aside the same illusions Lucas then wanted to try to impress upon those too young to have been involved or seen much of the horrors of Veitnam.

I get wanting to try to rebuild things, to try to recapture that cultural innocence; but it's gone, and Lucas himself has become part of what he wanted to fight against, with everything that's happened.

Just look what happened to Gina Carano.

This is why I liked Andor, both Andor and Luthen understood this in their own struggles, and didn't sugar coat or kiddify shit.

There used up and spat out by a goverment which cant give a fuck about them you mean? Yeah. Fun times. Those guys are the real geniuses!

The Force sensitivity in Chiss fades with age, that's not something the Ascendancy can control, only account for.

And Force Sensitive Chiss are really rare to begin with, and the Chiss population isn't nearly as big as the Jedi and Sith's usual recruiting pool.

And whatever else, Chiss Force sensitives are not made into cult members, or taught some mystical religious bullshit, like Jedi and Sith. When they lose their Force sensitivity, they are allowed to retire and/or teach new skywalkers how to navigate the mess that is the Unknown Regions.

There is a reason the Chiss are effectively the 'Only Sane Man' species/gov in that galaxy, and has outlasted multiple other governments in the wider galaxy.

 

[Batrix2070]

Forgive @Bacle but here you are wrong. The stories everyone is fed in culture and pop culture ultimately reflect their own choices in life.

Feeding exclusively on stories full of cynicism, grayness and false wisdom causes people to react in such a way as to create such a world for themselves.

And it's not true, it's a concoction of false smarts who are trying to justify their own moral decline. The world is not gray, because in gray nothing is ultimately seen. Neither good nor evil can be seen. Although both really exist. If we can't see the difference, why should we try? After all, it's going to be bad, bad anyway. Maybe it's better to do nothing? This is how the dichonomy of happiness-unhappiness will arise and it is wrong.

And so such stories, ultimately do not change anything. Because they are a reflection of what a person in reality. Who sees only gray, sees only one color and not reality.

If one feeds on something not cynical and rejects this false wisdom, this one will obviously act differently. With hope, towards better and not towards worse.

SW is a story of heroism, courage and striving for better, there are downfalls in it but they are just something that ultimately reinforces the satisfaction of the victory of good. If someone is cynical and sees everything gray, he will never do something good and will deepen the evil that is already there.

From bad to worse. And that will not fix the world.

If you want a bleak history and a cynical view of everything, then choose a world written for such thinking. A world of decline.

But going back, SW is very traditional in its form, a story of heroism, climbing a mountain, fighting, falling and the ultimate victory of good over evil.

There is no room for gray stories, only colorful ones. Stories that begin with white and end with black, where gray is just one of the colors of the whole.

They are meant to lift people's spirits, to encourage them to do better.

How is a bleak story supposed to achieve that? One can yes make such a setting as showing why the Empire must be knocked down, destroyed. Show why the Rebellion is against it but they are supposed to be temporary and encourage change, say in the end there is victory and a path to better! But you guys already know that right?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

On another topic, one does wonder what an Empire ruled by Emperor Vader would look like.

Ironically, I think it would be a far better functioning and fairer system than Palpatine's, as Vader simply isn't a control freak (nor evil to his core, as much as he'd like to pretend otherwise) and is happy to delegate to competent officials. It would have the most effective civil service in the history of fiction because "the Vader approach" is the miracle cure for bureaucracy.

Also, as soon as he's off the leash, I think Vader would win the propaganda coup of the century by bringing the imperial hammer down on the slave trade.

If Palpatine is something of an evil Augustus, then Vader might actually be a Sith Septimius Severus: a soldier emperor. An absolutely fucking terrifying version of that, but a version nonetheless. The Army would be fanatically loyal at least.

 

[Bacle]

Forgive @Bacle but here you are wrong. The stories everyone is fed in culture and pop culture ultimately reflect their own choices in life.

Feeding exclusively on stories full of cynicism, grayness and false wisdom causes people to react in such a way as to create such a world for themselves.

And it's not true, it's a concoction of false smarts who are trying to justify their own moral decline. The world is not gray, because in gray nothing is ultimately seen. Neither good nor evil can be seen. Although both really exist. If we can't see the difference, why should we try? After all, it's going to be bad, bad anyway. Maybe it's better to do nothing? This is how the dichonomy of happiness-unhappiness will arise and it is wrong.

And so such stories, ultimately do not change anything. Because they are a reflection of what a person in reality. Who sees only gray, sees only one color and not reality.

If one feeds on something not cynical and rejects this false wisdom, this one will obviously act differently. With hope, towards better and not towards worse.

SW is a story of heroism, courage and striving for better, there are downfalls in it but they are just something that ultimately reinforces the satisfaction of the victory of good. If someone is cynical and sees everything gray, he will never do something good and will deepen the evil that is already there.

From bad to worse. And that will not fix the world.

If you want a bleak history and a cynical view of everything, then choose a world written for such thinking. A world of decline.

But going back, SW is very traditional in its form, a story of heroism, climbing a mountain, fighting, falling and the ultimate victory of good over evil.

There is no room for gray stories, only colorful ones. Stories that begin with white and end with black, where gray is just one of the colors of the whole.

They are meant to lift people's spirits, to encourage them to do better.

How is a bleak story supposed to achieve that? One can yes make such a setting as showing why the Empire must be knocked down, destroyed. Show why the Rebellion is against it but they are supposed to be temporary and encourage change, say in the end there is victory and a path to better! But you guys already know that right?

Oh, the idea that there is no room for 'grey' story telling is so very wrong; there is a reason I mentioned Malcolm Reynolds.

And you can do 'normal heros' for the normal person, without super powers.

For example, Samwise Gamgee; that is what we need more of in story telling, why I find the Jedi and Sith and 'magical' shit so childish, and why you don't see me complaining about LotR.

The only super power Sam had was loyalty, something far more valuable to teach than anything Yoda or Luke ever said.

 

[Skallagrim]

On another topic, one does wonder what an Empire ruled by Emperor Vader would look like.

Ironically, I think it would be a far better functioning and fairer system than Palpatine's, as Vader simply isn't a control freak (nor evil to his core, as much as he'd like to pretend otherwise) and is happy to delegate to competent officials. It would have the most effective civil service in the history of fiction because "the Vader approach" is the miracle cure for bureaucracy.

Also, as soon as he's off the leash, I think Vader would win the propaganda coup of the century by bringing the imperial hammer down on the slave trade.

If Palpatine is something of an evil Augustus, then Vader might actually be a Sith Septimius Severus: a soldier emperor. An absolutely fucking terrifying version of that, but a version nonetheless. The Army would be fanatically loyal at least.

I've always thought of Palpy as an "purely evil Caesar" (who doesn't get assassinated), rather than an Augustus-- but I suppose that's a peripheral point. Vader isn't really Augustus material, either. In fact, he'd be fairly shit at ruling, but this would (as you say) be solved in large part by him not ruling.

He'd have zero time for toadies like Mas Amedda or Sate Pestage, and he wouldn't tolerate failure, so a lot of promoted-via-backstabbing-and-politicking-but-actually-not-very-capable OTL Imperial officers would not get in key positions.

Tarkin would be having a field day, since he gets along pretty okay with Vader, and Vader's regime will basically be the dream of the Militarist faction come true. I think Vader didn't get along well with Thrawn at times (different philosophies), but that may have been caused in part by Palpy manipulating conflicts between his subordinates. Vader in charge would supposedly give Thrawn a better shot at turning the Empire into the sort of "no-nonsense dictatorship" he was hoping it would become.

The problem is that Vader can be really unstable. His general disinterest in administration, plus his tendency to murder anyone who fails or pisses him off, will cause a lot of the high officers to ask "Why do we need this guy around, exactly?" -- And since he's weeded out the morons, he's surrounded by competent officers...

Assassination plots ahoy!

 

[Batrix2070]

Oh, the idea that there is no room for 'grey' story telling is so very wrong; there is a reason I mentioned Malcolm Reynolds.

And you can do 'normal heros' for the normal person, without super powers.

For example, Samwise Gamgee; that is what we need more of in story telling, why I find the Jedi and Sith and 'magical' shit so childish, and why you don't see me complaining about LotR.

The only super power Sam had was loyalty, something far more valuable to teach than anything Yoda or Luke ever said.

Man, but these are just tools for storytelling! One could deprive Luke, of the Force. Remove the Force from the entire SW story and still the point of the story would remain the same!

Because at no point did the uniqueness and attachment to Luke come from the fact that he has the Force! It only resulted from the character itself!

It's just that the whole mystical setting given to SW by the phenomenon called the Force makes the story stand out, but that just colors the whole story!

You might as well move SW to Communist Poland, like when I showed the paintings done by AI. Change the tools of storytelling that make SW just SW. And change the names of the characters to typically Polish names, the whole point of the story will remain the same and that will attract people to watch the story.

Superpowers are meaningless, which is why many of today's characters built by Woke are so boring and unengaging. Because the whole point of the characters is based solely on their superpowers and without them they mean nothing.

The very fact that the author has to specifically remove them in order for you to see the character itself, as in the case of Sam, means that you rather have a problem in looking at what kind of person he is and not what kind of abilities he has.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

The Baby Boomers parents, be they 'Silent' or 'Greatest' gen aged, fed them a lot of illusions about the world as part of Cold War propaganda in the 50's/60's.

Well Propaganda is not, in and of itself, the same thing as what we're talking about namely stories of heroism and stark, contrasting good and evil. You certainly can use such stories for propaganda purposes but simply pushing a "better dead than Red" idea isn't really a worldview but a reflection of one's worldview.

Without an underlying framework to teach the next generation there is a clear wrong from right, and much of culture in the 50's and 60's was drifting away from that, all the propaganda about how Communists are evil can be brushed off as "The US does bad things too so their equally culpable".

Just to pick one example I have some experience with, compare Howard's Conan of the 30's to Moorcock's Elric of the 60's. While both are "dark characters" who do at times unsavory things Conan has a very clear conscious and code of ethics which he will uphold against God or Civilized man. That there is a good and a bad and a man must choose. While Elric is, while a fantastic and imaginative universe, almost the opposite. Nothing matters, man has no control over his fate including most of all our titular character and the universe is governed not by right or wrong but by balancing Order and Chaos.

 

[Earl]

I've always thought of Palpy as an "purely evil Caesar" (who doesn't get assassinated), rather than an Augustus-- but I suppose that's a peripheral point. Vader isn't really Augustus material, either. In fact, he'd be fairly shit at ruling, but this would (as you say) be solved in large part by him not ruling.

He'd have zero time for toadies like Mas Amedda or Sate Pestage, and he wouldn't tolerate failure, so a lot of promoted-via-backstabbing-and-politicking-but-actually-not-very-capable OTL Imperial officers would not get in key positions.

Tarkin would be having a field day, since he gets along pretty okay with Vader, and Vader's regime will basically be the dream of the Militarist faction come true. I think Vader didn't get along well with Thrawn at times (different philosophies), but that may have been caused in part by Palpy manipulating conflicts between his subordinates. Vader in charge would supposedly give Thrawn a better shot at turning the Empire into the sort of "no-nonsense dictatorship" he was hoping it would become.

The problem is that Vader can be really unstable. His general disinterest in administration, plus his tendency to murder anyone who fails or pisses him off, will cause a lot of the high officers to ask "Why do we need this guy around, exactly?" -- And since he's weeded out the morons, he's surrounded by competent officers...

Assassination plots ahoy!

Tbh, I just dont see him being able to be Emperor. Hes a instrument of Fear, and no one really likes him or belive he will do a good job. Plus, the Public has at best, a highly vague idea of who he is, which makes him taking control even more difficult. Honestly, the only people I can see backing him is Death Squadron. And even there... I dont know.


Of course, all of this is to Palpatines laughs. If Vader dies, hah, lmao. If Vader wins, ah gooooood Apprentice.