Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Why the post-ROTJ era sucks!


Seireeni's Avatar


Seireeni
04.19.2013 , 03:31 PM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
Malgus and Marr aren't exactly 'evil', although in some senses they are. But they do represent the dark side, which represents some form of 'evil'. We can debate over what this 'evil' actually is, but it exists nonetheless.

Sidious is perhaps the only example of a villain in Star Wars without any strong motives, all others have and have been very successful because of that. Neither have the 'good guys' been paragons of light. Let me stress that as well, I'm not saying that Star Wars needs paragons of good and evil, but the spheres have to exist, there can be different gradients.

Nor does everyone have to fit into a category, there can simply just be 'persons' and often are. But those categories still have to exist somewhere and somehow for it to work.

And Star Trek is like Star Wars meets Eastenders, don't watch it.
Haven't watched Eastenders either...but I promise I won't watch either of those.

Now, to me, a "bad guy" with really good motives isn't actually a "bad" guy. Especially if the bad guy doesn't do dramatic stuff like kill your owns for fun. Using the dark side doesn't make you evil imo. However, willingly using the dark side all the time requires that you embrace emotions like anger, and that will increase the possibility that you may commit evil deeds, i.e. killing people when you really don't have to.

I'm not that familiar with EU far away from RotJ, mostly staying in the area where Timothy Zahn's books can be found, but let's look at Thrawn. (Putting a spoiler thing just in case someone hasn't read the Thrawn trilogy).
Spoiler


The Empire haven't actually changed, but all the people who excused the people "good guys" killed with "well, they were evil" may have lost their excuse. They are forced to think that their good guys who were killing bad guys to save the galaxy weren't that clean after all. They might suddenly start thingking that hey, those good guys in the ranks of the "bad guys" maybe weren't exceptions after all, maybe those evil guys were the exceptions! They may realize that war isn't that nice and pretty and every story has 2 versions. The difference between a hero and a rogue often comes down to who tells the story, as it's said in one of Elaine Cunnigham's fantasy books I think. And when it can't be like that, imo the story has failed. When the other side is so evil you can't really symphatize with them, everything starts being boring.

Tbh I thought Empire was evil. Allegiance by Timothy Zahn really changed that to me. Empire is full of normal, good people and they just have a few less nice people on top. And I think Empire should be shown more often like this, and it is - after Sidious is defeated, people, who aren't so easily brushed aside as "evil", mostly take over the Empire, and we just are forced to face the truth.
But of course, if someone wants their good guys all pure, this won't work for them. It would make the good guys killers and murderers, and that's a big thing for some people. (Not saying that you would be the case, but I do think some people like the blackandwhite-setup because it's easier. They have to think much less.)

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
04.19.2013 , 03:37 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by Seireeni View Post
Haven't watched Eastenders either...but I promise I won't watch either of those.

Now, to me, a "bad guy" with really good motives isn't actually a "bad" guy. Especially if the bad guy doesn't do dramatic stuff like kill your owns for fun. Using the dark side doesn't make you evil imo. However, willingly using the dark side all the time requires that you embrace emotions like anger, and that will increase the possibility that you may commit evil deeds, i.e. killing people when you really don't have to.

I'm not that familiar with EU far away from RotJ, mostly staying in the area where Timothy Zahn's books can be found, but let's look at Thrawn. (Putting a spoiler thing just in case someone hasn't read the Thrawn trilogy).
Spoiler


The Empire haven't actually changed, but all the people who excused the people "good guys" killed with "well, they were evil" may have lost their excuse. They are forced to think that their good guys who were killing bad guys to save the galaxy weren't that clean after all. They might suddenly start thingking that hey, those good guys in the ranks of the "bad guys" maybe weren't exceptions after all, maybe those evil guys were the exceptions! They may realize that war isn't that nice and pretty and every story has 2 versions. The difference between a hero and a rogue often comes down to who tells the story, as it's said in one of Elaine Cunnigham's fantasy books I think. And when it can't be like that, imo the story has failed. When the other side is so evil you can't really symphatize with them, everything starts being boring.

Tbh I thought Empire was evil. Allegiance by Timothy Zahn really changed that to me. Empire is full of normal, good people and they just have a few less nice people on top. And I think Empire should be shown more often like this, and it is - after Sidious is defeated, people, who aren't so easily brushed aside as "evil", mostly take over the Empire, and we just are forced to face the truth.
But of course, if someone wants their good guys all pure, this won't work for them. It would make the good guys killers and murderers, and that's a big thing for some people. (Not saying that you would be the case, but I do think some people like the blackandwhite-setup because it's easier. They have to think much less.)
Firstly. I think there's a difference between morally evil, and mythologically evil. Which in star wars basically translates into the dark side.

But anyway, you make a very persuasive argument, and I'm inclined to agree with you. TBH the Timothy Zahn Trilogy is one of the few things I regard as really good in the post-ROTJ era. And I must say I agree that sometimes its good to divert from the typical battles between good and evil and focus on something different. Nevertheless, you cannot abandon it altogether and I feel that this is what the post-ROTJ era has done. To the point were moral ambiguity and mythological absence become the norm, rather than the other way around.

Seireeni's Avatar


Seireeni
04.19.2013 , 04:15 PM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
Firstly. I think there's a difference between morally evil, and mythologically evil. Which in star wars basically translates into the dark side.

But anyway, you make a very persuasive argument, and I'm inclined to agree with you. TBH the Timothy Zahn Trilogy is one of the few things I regard as really good in the post-ROTJ era. And I must say I agree that sometimes its good to divert from the typical battles between good and evil and focus on something different. Nevertheless, you cannot abandon it altogether and I feel that this is what the post-ROTJ era has done. To the point were moral ambiguity and mythological absence become the norm, rather than the other way around.
Ah, there we have a little problem - the thing you would call "mythologically evil" for me is "evil for the sake of evil". From my point of view, dark side is the result when you start turning "evil", not some kind of cause for it. I want my "evil" with complex psychological motives that make sense.

Anyway, in some pieces of literature after RotJ, it's not really the lack of evil that would annoy me, but the fact that there are so many sides in the same conflict that it starts to be hard to keep track on. As much as I hate to critizise anything done by Timothy Zahn, I'm going to use Hand of Thrawn -duology as an example.
Spoiler


I'm all in for complex plots, but imo, especially in Star Wars, I really like it when there's maybe 2-4 different "sides" in the conflict. Even if we add Luke&companions and Karrde&companions to Republic leaders and ignore Car'das for playing a minor part, that's still 6 different sides in 2 books.

Now, I'm not familiar with the area farther away in the EU, but what I read from the original post, it sounds like the problem may be more like this than the lack of actual evil. To me, SW isn't supposed to me complex chicanery game with 101 different sides in one story told in 1 book. But I do think that evil for the sake of evil should be left to fairytales. Only one guy gets away with is for me, and he's Tolkien, and that's because of the style he writes. It's like reading Kalevala or greek mythology, especially The Silmarillion. But until SW is written in the same way The Silmarillion is, I don't like the absolute evil in it.

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
04.20.2013 , 04:21 AM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by Seireeni View Post
Ah, there we have a little problem - the thing you would call "mythologically evil" for me is "evil for the sake of evil". From my point of view, dark side is the result when you start turning "evil", not some kind of cause for it. I want my "evil" with complex psychological motives that make sense.
I agree, but I think most dark siders do. Malgus for example has his own philosophy, that perpetual war is the only way to make yourself strong, he really believes in the Sith Code and simply believes that is the way it should be done. I don't feel he just wants power, but perhaps purpose. Vader has a very complex psychology and Revan is an example of just what you are saying. But we have to remember that 'evil for evil's sake' is often actually just power-hungry and for some people that's a motive enough.
Quote:
Anyway, in some pieces of literature after RotJ, it's not really the lack of evil that would annoy me, but the fact that there are so many sides in the same conflict that it starts to be hard to keep track on. As much as I hate to critizise anything done by Timothy Zahn, I'm going to use Hand of Thrawn -duology as an example.
Spoiler


I'm all in for complex plots, but imo, especially in Star Wars, I really like it when there's maybe 2-4 different "sides" in the conflict. Even if we add Luke&companions and Karrde&companions to Republic leaders and ignore Car'das for playing a minor part, that's still 6 different sides in 2 books.
This is my second gripe with the post-ROTJ.
Quote:
Now, I'm not familiar with the area farther away in the EU, but what I read from the original post, it sounds like the problem may be more like this than the lack of actual evil. To me, SW isn't supposed to me complex chicanery game with 101 different sides in one story told in 1 book. But I do think that evil for the sake of evil should be left to fairytales. Only one guy gets away with is for me, and he's Tolkien, and that's because of the style he writes. It's like reading Kalevala or greek mythology, especially The Silmarillion. But until SW is written in the same way The Silmarillion is, I don't like the absolute evil in it.
I think the dark and light sides of the Force are very important to Star Wars, and I think they allow for more complex kinds of 'evil'. It also allows people to exist within the 'evil' sphere and not necessarily be evil. Malgus and Marr for example aren't exactly evil, they are Sith, but they still provide the fairytale antagonistic.

Kaedusz's Avatar


Kaedusz
04.20.2013 , 05:02 AM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post

And that is the lack of that construct inherent to Star Wars good and evil.
Actually they are bad for all sorts of reasons.and this one you mentioned is maybe the least important.Moral ambiguity is never a bad thing.

The things that are bad are concept art,the story/lore itself,cheesiness,banality,platitude.It feels like a terrible fan made load of crap.It's like two fans decide to dress up like jedi and sith and swing around badly handmade lightsabers and take themselves seriously while recording it for youtube.This is what is wrong with the post RotJ era.Also the vong is so out of character in the SW franchise its unbelievable.
The true EU is the Old Republic era.I dare say its much better than even the movies.

Seireeni's Avatar


Seireeni
04.20.2013 , 05:21 AM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
I agree, but I think most dark siders do. Malgus for example has his own philosophy, that perpetual war is the only way to make yourself strong, he really believes in the Sith Code and simply believes that is the way it should be done. I don't feel he just wants power, but perhaps purpose. Vader has a very complex psychology and Revan is an example of just what you are saying. But we have to remember that 'evil for evil's sake' is often actually just power-hungry and for some people that's a motive enough.
Personally I have to say that saying "he's just power-hungry" and not explaining why he wants so much power is still just bad character-making. It shouldn't be motive, it should be the result from some other thing. For example, I have to take you away from SW-world and give a look for a character called Rumpelstiltskin in Disney's Once Upon a Time -series.
Spoiler

I think that is an excellent example of a character who wants power, but still have an actual motive to want it.


Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
I think the dark and light sides of the Force are very important to Star Wars, and I think they allow for more complex kinds of 'evil'. It also allows people to exist within the 'evil' sphere and not necessarily be evil. Malgus and Marr for example aren't exactly evil, they are Sith, but they still provide the fairytale antagonistic.
I also think that dark and light side of the Force are important to Star Wars, but I don't think that it should be "side a is full of light-side users and good and side b is full of dark side users and evil". Imo ds/ls should be used to decribe individual people, not excuse the slaughtering of the people in the other side of the war. I've actually read a few books from that legacy-area, and I don't remember much about them, but I remember that Jacen Solo was showing clear signs of dark side and was still fighting in the Republic's side. And I really like that the dark side is handled like that, so people in both sides of a conflict can have people from light and dark side - the difference might be in the way these are treated (i.e. at side A people get worried if someone shows the signs of dark side while at side B people couldn't care less).

I actually came up with an idea to this last night when I couldn't sleep (I get all my great ideas at 4 o'clock at night when I can't sleep, lol). I don't think "good vs. bad" is needed in Star Wars, but I do believe that some kind of "we vs. them" is. Now, before you get confused, let me explain.

While every story has 2 sides, it is very Star Wars like to tell the story biased to one side. Thrawn trilogy is a good example: even though Thrawn nor Pellaeon is as extremely evil as Sidious was, the reader still does get a push towards the New Republic. They're not necessarily much "better" than the other side, but they are shown in a little different light. We are only told about the Empire when there's something plot-related happening in there, or maybe to give us little deeper look into some character's personality here and there. But with New Republic, we are told so many life's little things. We see those characters joking to each other, hear all about their worries and can relate their feelings. We have this scene where Luke Skywalker is on the rooftop drinking hot chocolate and really missing Ben, but we don't have a single page where Thrawn would stare to the emptiness of space and miss the loved ones he have lost.

While none of the people are actually so "good" or "bad", the other side gets the "good guy treatment", making them look as symphatetic and realistic people as possible, and the other side gets "the bad guy treatment", so the characters in there are only shown in scenes that are related to the plot or just plain tell us about the personality of the character. It doesn't give you the moral compass to say these guys are bad and should be destroyed, but gently guides you to think that neither side is that bad, but you still don't want the people getting the "bad guy treatment" to have the final win, because they are so much harder to symphatize with.

The fastest way to realize what I'm talking about is to first read the Thrawn trilogy: Thrawn gets the bad guy treatment there, he's a cold, effective leader of the Empire and is constantly causing trouble to the characters we are lead to symphatize with. Then pick up Outbound Flight. There we don't only see an effective leader: we see a person who's interested in new people and languages, happy to see his brother and gets tired after a lot of work and asks permission to sit down when talking with Car'das. In there, Thrawn absolutely gets the good guy treatment, the reader is slowly lead to symphatize with Thrawn.

And this is what SW to me should be. Not that the other side is bad, but that we are shown what side we are supposed to be and still have the tools to defend ourselves if we happen to like the other side better.

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
04.20.2013 , 05:51 AM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Seireeni View Post
Personally I have to say that saying "he's just power-hungry" and not explaining why he wants so much power is still just bad character-making. It shouldn't be motive, it should be the result from some other thing. For example, I have to take you away from SW-world and give a look for a character called Rumpelstiltskin in Disney's Once Upon a Time -series.
Spoiler

I think a balance definitely needs to be struck. IMO I think there should be definitive good and evil characters, but with motives behind them. That works and in Star Wars is often is done that way.
Quote:
I also think that dark and light side of the Force are important to Star Wars, but I don't think that it should be "side a is full of light-side users and good and side b is full of dark side users and evil". Imo ds/ls should be used to decribe individual people, not excuse the slaughtering of the people in the other side of the war. I've actually read a few books from that legacy-area, and I don't remember much about them, but I remember that Jacen Solo was showing clear signs of dark side and was still fighting in the Republic's side. And I really like that the dark side is handled like that, so people in both sides of a conflict can have people from light and dark side - the difference might be in the way these are treated (i.e. at side A people get worried if someone shows the signs of dark side while at side B people couldn't care less).

I actually came up with an idea to this last night when I couldn't sleep (I get all my great ideas at 4 o'clock at night when I can't sleep, lol). I don't think "good vs. bad" is needed in Star Wars, but I do believe that some kind of "we vs. them" is. Now, before you get confused, let me explain.

While every story has 2 sides, it is very Star Wars like to tell the story biased to one side. Thrawn trilogy is a good example: even though Thrawn nor Pellaeon is as extremely evil as Sidious was, the reader still does get a push towards the New Republic. They're not necessarily much "better" than the other side, but they are shown in a little different light. We are only told about the Empire when there's something plot-related happening in there, or maybe to give us little deeper look into some character's personality here and there. But with New Republic, we are told so many life's little things. We see those characters joking to each other, hear all about their worries and can relate their feelings. We have this scene where Luke Skywalker is on the rooftop drinking hot chocolate and really missing Ben, but we don't have a single page where Thrawn would stare to the emptiness of space and miss the loved ones he have lost.

While none of the people are actually so "good" or "bad", the other side gets the "good guy treatment", making them look as symphatetic and realistic people as possible, and the other side gets "the bad guy treatment", so the characters in there are only shown in scenes that are related to the plot or just plain tell us about the personality of the character. It doesn't give you the moral compass to say these guys are bad and should be destroyed, but gently guides you to think that neither side is that bad, but you still don't want the people getting the "bad guy treatment" to have the final win, because they are so much harder to symphatize with.

The fastest way to realize what I'm talking about is to first read the Thrawn trilogy: Thrawn gets the bad guy treatment there, he's a cold, effective leader of the Empire and is constantly causing trouble to the characters we are lead to symphatize with. Then pick up Outbound Flight. There we don't only see an effective leader: we see a person who's interested in new people and languages, happy to see his brother and gets tired after a lot of work and asks permission to sit down when talking with Car'das. In there, Thrawn absolutely gets the good guy treatment, the reader is slowly lead to symphatize with Thrawn.

And this is what SW to me should be. Not that the other side is bad, but that we are shown what side we are supposed to be and still have the tools to defend ourselves if we happen to like the other side better.
I think in part we'll have to agree to disagree. Because although 'we vs them' is an effective way of storytelling, I still feel that good vs bad is needed. Perhaps I'm just a traditionalist but I feel when you take that away, you take away the myth and the magic of Star Wars that I find so compelling.

Despite this, I feel its important to have moral ambiguity in between, gradients of good and bad. The underworld is a good area in which this can come about, smuggler, bounty hunters, crime lords, Mandalorians - there not evil and there not necessarily good, and although many of them fit into the category of protagonist and antagonist their is a lot of room for flexibility, and those roles can easily be reversed.

And as a said before, the same room for flexibility can be found in the primary factions. For example in SWTOR, not everyone in the Republic are paragons of light, some of them aren't even good, and then same can be said of the Sith Empire. So while the Republic represent 'good' and the Empire 'evil' (I think I prefer the terms light and dark) you can see light in the Empire and dark in the Republic and as such can sympathize with both parties.

This could have been applied to the post-ROTJ era. For example the Imperial Remnant, without the Sith they simply don't work. I feel its necessary to inject some 'evil' into them, I would have had that take the form of the Sith. However these Sith would not sit well with the Imperials, and be eventually overthrown. I also would have done events like the Second Galatic Civil War differently, were neither party seems good and 'good' is always switching sides. Instead both parties should have been 'bad' - the Galactic Alliance corrupt to the extremist of senses (perhaps led by a corrupted Jacen Solo), and instead of the Conferation of whatever the Imperial Remnant led by a resurgent Sith party (perhaps Lumiya, not as Jacen's master). In such a situation the Jedi (led by Luke and representing good) would choose neither side and be forced to abandon both parties and fight both. Ending with the reformation of the Republic or whoever and the destruction of the Remnant who would likely have fallen prey to infighting, or attempted to overthrow the Sith. This I feel would have made for a better story, and one still with moral ambiguity.

And with the Sith-Imperial War. I would have scrapped the Fel Empire completely, and the Imperial Knights. And instead had the One Sith as a pure, Sith faction taking over whatever government is in power. Destroying much of the Jedi and leaving Cade Skywalker, a rogue Jedi, to reconcile himself with his destiny and save the galaxy. Oh and take away Krayt's stupid armour, wipe out all traces of the Vong entirely!
[/COLOR]

Seireeni's Avatar


Seireeni
04.20.2013 , 06:39 AM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
I think in part we'll have to agree to disagree. Because although 'we vs them' is an effective way of storytelling, I still feel that good vs bad is needed. Perhaps I'm just a traditionalist but I feel when you take that away, you take away the myth and the magic of Star Wars that I find so compelling.

Despite this, I feel its important to have moral ambiguity in between, gradients of good and bad. The underworld is a good area in which this can come about, smuggler, bounty hunters, crime lords, Mandalorians - there not evil and there not necessarily good, and although many of them fit into the category of protagonist and antagonist their is a lot of room for flexibility, and those roles can easily be reversed.

And as a said before, the same room for flexibility can be found in the primary factions. For example in SWTOR, not everyone in the Republic are paragons of light, some of them aren't even good, and then same can be said of the Sith Empire. So while the Republic represent 'good' and the Empire 'evil' (I think I prefer the terms light and dark) you can see light in the Empire and dark in the Republic and as such can sympathize with both parties.

This could have been applied to the post-ROTJ era. For example the Imperial Remnant, without the Sith they simply don't work. I feel its necessary to inject some 'evil' into them, I would have had that take the form of the Sith. However these Sith would not sit well with the Imperials, and be eventually overthrown. I also would have done events like the Second Galatic Civil War differently, were neither party seems good and 'good' is always switching sides. Instead both parties should have been 'bad' - the Galactic Alliance corrupt to the extremist of senses (perhaps led by a corrupted Jacen Solo), and instead of the Conferation of whatever the Imperial Remnant led by a resurgent Sith party (perhaps Lumiya, not as Jacen's master). In such a situation the Jedi (led by Luke and representing good) would choose neither side and be forced to abandon both parties and fight both. Ending with the reformation of the Republic or whoever and the destruction of the Remnant who would likely have fallen prey to infighting, or attempted to overthrow the Sith. This I feel would have made for a better story, and one still with moral ambiguity.

And with the Sith-Imperial War. I would have scrapped the Fel Empire completely, and the Imperial Knights. And instead had the One Sith as a pure, Sith faction taking over whatever government is in power. Destroying much of the Jedi and leaving Cade Skywalker, a rogue Jedi, to reconcile himself with his destiny and save the galaxy. Oh and take away Krayt's stupid armour, wipe out all traces of the Vong entirely![/COLOR][/COLOR]
Okay, as I have said, I'm not too familiar with the area of Cade Skywalker or Lumiya, Have read 2 books with Lumiya there and 0 with Cade Skywalker, but I do admit these plots you recommend do sound very interesting. But with Vong and The Imperial Remnants, I have to strongly disagree.

Now, Imperial Remnants. Not so bad anymore, are we. Funny thing is, this is how I have always seen the Empire, now other people are just forced to see it like this, too. The sith just removed the excuse for killing imperials because "they are so darksided!". Now everyone can see that the imperials are mostly just actual, normal people who just have different kind of beliefs. They have been that the whole time, but now they are just shown in that light. The last thing I would want is a sith to mess things up again and give people again an excuse to think that imperials are bad because their leader is bad. Tbh I like the Empire, and I think I should have the right to like it. Because when we skip the crazed sith leading them, they're just actual people with nice uniforms and the idea that i.e. democrazy just doesn't work.

With Vong, now, I don't actually like them, but they have their roots too deep to be removed. They've been around for a ridicously long time. The chiss knew about them before attack of the clones. Sidious either knew about them, too, or Doriana was bluffing when he claimed something like that in Outbound Flight. Main reason Thrawn ever joined the Empire seemed to be that he wanted to "protect his people", and I have a strong guess from whom he wanted to protect his people from. People have been joining the Empire of the Hand after they were shown what horrors there are in the edge of the galaxy (I smell Vong here, too). Also, there have been a theory that Thrawn actually attacked New Republic because he believed that if the Vong would came, no way New Republic would be ready for them. The galaxy would be eaten alive.
So, Vong may not be the most star wars-like thing there is, but they couldn't be removed without affecting a lot of other things.

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
04.20.2013 , 08:23 AM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Seireeni View Post
Now, Imperial Remnants. Not so bad anymore, are we. Funny thing is, this is how I have always seen the Empire, now other people are just forced to see it like this, too. The sith just removed the excuse for killing imperials because "they are so darksided!". Now everyone can see that the imperials are mostly just actual, normal people who just have different kind of beliefs. They have been that the whole time, but now they are just shown in that light. The last thing I would want is a sith to mess things up again and give people again an excuse to think that imperials are bad because their leader is bad. Tbh I like the Empire, and I think I should have the right to like it. Because when we skip the crazed sith leading them, they're just actual people with nice uniforms and the idea that i.e. democrazy just doesn't work.

With Vong, now, I don't actually like them, but they have their roots too deep to be removed. They've been around for a ridicously long time. The chiss knew about them before attack of the clones. Sidious either knew about them, too, or Doriana was bluffing when he claimed something like that in Outbound Flight. Main reason Thrawn ever joined the Empire seemed to be that he wanted to "protect his people", and I have a strong guess from whom he wanted to protect his people from. People have been joining the Empire of the Hand after they were shown what horrors there are in the edge of the galaxy (I smell Vong here, too). Also, there have been a theory that Thrawn actually attacked New Republic because he believed that if the Vong would came, no way New Republic would be ready for them. The galaxy would be eaten alive.
So, Vong may not be the most star wars-like thing there is, but they couldn't be removed without affecting a lot of other things.
Concerning with the Imperial Remnant. I am inclined to agree with you. However my biggest gripe if that when it becomes a battle between the Republic and Remnant, their is no good or evil. The writer can make you more sympathetic towards one cause but ultimately its just a battle over political beliefs, nothing mythical. I would reintroduce the Sith, however not as before. Instead have these new Sith attempt to claim leadership over the Empire, their Sith, they likely believe it is their right. However the Imperials are tired of their dark side overlords who seem to cause nothing but trouble, so the Sith are overthrown and the Imperials turn on them. Meanwhile the Republic is battling both factions.

I believe that would make for a more interesting story that better suits the universe.

As for the Vong, this is a suggestion for if we could start the EU again. I very much feel the Vong have been shoe horned into everything. For example apparently the Empire was building all those massive fleets because of the threat of the Vong, be we know that's never what Lucas intended. The Vong seem to just be a fear factor on the edge of the galaxy, and excuse for the actions of various characters and factions.

TalonVII's Avatar


TalonVII
04.20.2013 , 10:03 AM | #30
Well another thing to think about. There are many other books that show besides the jedi good vs evil. Look at the X-wing Series. I think that series probably the best post ROTJ books out there. Kinda fills in the gaps between ROTJ and the thrawn trilogy.

But in the aspects between good and evil, it can shift into a very grey murky area. Look at Anakin Skywalker/Vader. Went to the dark side to save the woman he loved. His intentions were good but what he did...well road to hell is paved with good intentions. But those very same feelings for love and family is what SAVED him. Jolee Bindo said it best. Love can damn you and it can save you.

Some men like Palpatine are Megalomaniacs. Some fight for a cause that shifts week to week. Han Solo, Lando Calrissian and to a point Leia.

Then you simply have those who fight for a cause or because ordered to. Wedge[up to a point], Ackbar, Soontir Fel.

I don't think that Star Wars focuses mainly on Good vs Evil but the whole rainbow between good and evil.
Pretty, so what do we blow up first? -Wraith Squadron Motto
Ebon Hawk
Skiratta Legacy