quote:

---

Correction, star wars may have cast the villain. Also, you're a few hours late on this discussion.

---

Yeah, i just noticed... It's my theme for the day aparently.

quote:

---

Yeah, i just noticed... It's my theme for the day aparently.

---

Not complaining, just genuinely curious... do you usually post without reading any of the posts above it?

I looked a few posts up (didn't look at the entire page) and didn't see anything about it (only he ventress/clone wars stuff), but if I had looked a little further up, I would have seen that you had already posted it TCTTS. I just flipped over to IMDB and saw that on the front page, and then was like "oh cool" came over here, and did what I said above.

Just got on for the first time today and saw the news.

First thought is, "meh". Never seen the guy, never heard of him, so I'll check him out on youtube I guess. A bit disappointing after hearing so much about Gary Oldman though.

But I am glad to finally get ANY real news. Hopefully this is the first of many.

[This message has been edited by Brian Earl Spilner (edited 2/26/2014 8:08p).]

Dp

[This message has been edited by Brian Earl Spilner (edited 2/26/2014 8:08p).]

quote:

---

A bit disappointing after hearing so much about Gary Oldman though.

---

I don't think he was up for the same role. He may still be in play.

good direction. star wars was never really about big name actors save for a mentor here or there (original obi wan, liam neeson, ewan mcgregor [who wasnt that big in ep I but was by ep II and III]. and with harrison ford attached they dont need an established veteran actor to ground the actors/acting.

I love the casting of Adam Driver. Agree that he has Heath ledger potential. The episode that sticks with me the most is season 2 when he and Ray went to Staten Island to return the dog that he stole. The scene where they go from having a normal conversation about women to Adam completely losing his **** and storming off is a great example.

And he just looks like someone from that world, like some random rebel pilot in episode 4.

Lots of potential here. It will be hard to separate him from his Girls character.

he's really great

for the most part, he's makes most of the actors on that show look entirely amateur

he and zosia mamet are the breakout stars

Agreed. Especially in this last episode. Even that five-seconds of him doing an accent in the tub was above and beyond anything anyone else is doing on the show.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 2/27/2014 2:53p).]

him shoving the paper towels in his mouth and screaming made me want them to ignore the girls and just do a show about him trying to make it on broadway

love that guy

[This message has been edited by SuperDave03 (edited 2/27/2014 2:51p).]

^ Exactly.

Take it to the "Adam whatever in girls" thread.

^

quote:

---

Vader did not have an apprentice. He was content to be the 2nd Sith until he discovered Luke. If Palpatine had found another he thought more worthy of being his apprentice than Vader, he would have orchestrated events so that person would kill and replace Vader. Like he did with Anakin/Dooku and he tried with Luke/Vader. He would not have hid him off somewhere.

I personally don't like the idea of there being any other Sith out there, flies against "always two there are" from episode 1. I'd be ok with someone who worked for Palpatine finding some sort of Sith relic and training a force user.

---

Warning: We're talking EU to some extent here.

Anyway, what you stated is basically not true, regarding a Vader apprentice somehow violating the normal Sith way. The strength of the Rule of Two, from the Sith perspective, is that it promotes a sort of evil Darwinism. The master is always on the lookout for a better apprentice, and the apprentice is always looking for a way to supplant the master and have his own apprentice.

Vader had Galen Marek, aka Starkiller, who he raised from a child as his apprentice. He was definitely planning on overthrowing the Emperor.

When Luke came into the picture, both Vader and Palpatine had their eyes on him as a new apprentice. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Rule of Two, however, because the idea that the Emperor was a Sith Lord or even a precise definition of what a Sith even was didn't come up for another several decades.

As I said, EU don't mean squat.

That actor is only 30 years old. It would be a real stretch to think Palps or Vader had a secret apprentice who is now a Sith that was born 30 years ago. I realize movie ages/time and real ages/time are not the same, but it seems unlikely they'd make him a disciple Palps or Vader.

And I really hope it's not Palpatine's spirit advising him from beyond the grave just to get Ian McDiarmid in the movie, as awesome as he is.

I hate to get my hopes up, but I really hope the new trilogy isn't just "Ruh ! Roh! There's another SIth out there!"

^ That's definitely one of my concerns. Both of Abrams' villains in his two Star Trek movies were pretty underdeveloped. And both had great actors in the roles. There just wasn't much to them. Hopefully that was due more to Kurtzman/Orci's writing and not Abrams' directing, though (even though he's ultimately responsible). Plus, the villain Driver is playing is apparently supposed to arc over all three movies. So there's a lot of opportunity to develop/showcase him.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 3/2/2014 3:37p).]

Hopefully Ian McDarmid is there for flashbacks rather than part of the main storyline.

The Rule of Two was not absolute. I don't understand why people keep latching onto that... unless it's so that they can gleefully trash the EU.

The evil Sith Lords, power-mad masters of deception, are not going to adhere strictly to a rule set down 4,000 years ago that limits their power, and it would sound an off note if they did. Aside from that, the rule is broken in the movies when Vader and Sidious are openly trying to add Luke as a third wheel, so there is precedent for behavior that makes sense anyway.

The new movies are not bound by EU, but neither are they unable to go new directions from what happened in the movies.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 3/2/2014 4:05p).]

quote:

---

when Vader and Sidious are openly trying to add Luke as a third wheel

---

As I pointed out before, and I completely believe, neither of them wanted him as a 3rd wheel. They both wanted him to be the #2. Vader wanted him to help overthrow the emperor and Palps wanted him to kill and replace Vader.

I never saw the rule of 2 as limiting the Sith's power, but rather consolidating all of their power so they didn't have to share with anyone else, which Palpatine pulled off to the nth degree.

I don't know all the specifics, but is it possible that the "there is always two" rule applies to only master/apprentice "couples", meaning that there could be another two somewhere else?

I always thought the rule of two was designed so that the sith would always know where to look for the eventual backstab. Otherwise the as many sith would be killed by other sith as by the jedi.

As for actual movie talk, I'm avoiding getting my hopes up based on the cast considering that ep1 had Liam Neeson, Ewan Mcgregor, Natalie Portman, and Samuel L Jackson and still stunk.

I seem to remember that only Yoda mentioned the rule of two, what did he really know about the Sith?

Yoda was the dumbest of the Jedi. I wouldn't trust him.

quote:

---

The evil Sith Lords, power-mad masters of deception, are not going to adhere strictly to a rule set down 4,000 years ago that limits their power, and it would sound an off note if they did. Aside from that, the rule is broken in the movies when Vader and Sidious are openly trying to add Luke as a third wheel, so there is precedent for behavior that makes sense anyway.

---

Even in the EU, there weren't always two. At one point there was even a Sith triumvirate, all equals. It waxed and waned.

This is why the EU is such a mess. On one hand there is Darth Bane who killed off all the existing Sith and created the rule of 2, which leads straight to Palpatine in the line of succession. On the other hand you somehow have all these other Sith groups not tied to Bane that manage to pop up here and there.

That sounds like normal politics to me. Over hundreds of years you should have some variation, to say nothing of THOUSANDS of years.

Alias, I'm pretty familiar with EU. There were armies of Sith, Bane instituted the rule of two Vader had a dozen apprentices, Sidious had dozens of tools, and it goes on.

Step 1: set up an order whose sole purpose is the accumulation of power
Step 2: add the simple rule that there can only be two in the order
Step 3: add a second simple rule that says the trial to become a master consists of killing your master
Step 3: build a millenia-long tradition of working in the shadows with secret alliances, plots, manipulation, espionage, and assassination

Now, how long does it take for some enterprising young Sith to figure out he will have a better shot at taking down his master if he has an apprentice or two on his side? How many masters are going to put all their eggs in the basket of a single apprentice? How many apprentices are going to take out the master without an apprentice on deck? And exactly what compunctions do Sith lords have about breaking rules?

That's why you have myriad manifestations of the Sith order with lots of apprentices, converts, dark assassins, etc.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 3/2/2014 11:04p).]

Where did they learn to be Sith? Bane's line did not spread knowledge to others or suffer the existence of rival pretenders.

Take it to the eu thread! It's all irrelevant anyway.

The Sith had multiple large empires over the course of something like 50,000 years. This wasn't two guys in a garage. Aside from instances of Bane-line lords setting up fiefdoms on remote planets, Bane-line apprentices going rogue/getting cut off when their masters died, or Force sensitives discovering Sith holocrons/teachings on their own, there would have been isolated pockets left over from the big wars.

I can't speak for every bit of EU (there's too much to keep track of and a lot of it wasn't very good), but the parts I have read all had plausible backstories.

I read this entire thread, and what yall don't understand is Disney is running the show...

Yeah, Marvel really has sucked once Disney bought them up.