Realization that took me about 25 years: when Emperor Palpatine tells Luke “Strike me down with all your hatred, and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete,” he’s not saying something deep about the nature of evil and the ease of turning into the bad guy. He’s just making a last-ditch gambit to not get his ass lightsabered. Luke’s kind of a sucker for falling for it.
Luke’s already decided violence is an acceptable tactic, based on the dozens of nameless troopers and pilots he’s blasted into subatomic particles, so why would the Emperor be any different? Killing the Emperor isn’t going to make Luke a different kind of killer just because he killed someone with a visible face, and it’s certainly not going to make him start blowing up planets or torturing prisoners just for funsies. Luke could have said “Strike you down? Don’t mind if I do,” done just that, and not only would the battle have ended the same way, his dad might have survived.
(And if Vader had survived, repented, and rejoined the Light Side, but retained his influence over the Imperial military, he could have saved everyone a whole lot of grief in the coming years.)
The point is, sometimes when your enemies say “You’re playing right into my hands! The harder you oppose me, the more power I get!”, they’re actually just scared and full of bullshit. Never forget to consider that possibility.
So I’ve always suspected Padme originally had a bigger role in Revenge of the Sith than what ended up in the final product. Knowing what it is now though?
I’m mad as hell that it was cut.
-She has a prominent role in the formation of the Rebellion. Not just a single deleted scene, but multiple, regular meetings with Bail Organa and Mon Mothma. Seeing Padme start the Rebellion that her children eventually lead to victory? F**king awesome. The greater ties in personality and action between Leia and Padme would’ve been appreciated too.
-Padme suspects Anakin of going to the dark side throughout the movie. Padme with her natural intuition, instead of just being a whining plot device? Yes please.
-Padme goes to Mustafar with a knife with the intention to use it on Anakin. She loves him but she sees what he’s become and makes the hard decision to (try to) kill him for the greater good of the galaxy. Anakin doesn’t force choke her out of paranoia but a semi-more-tangible sense of betrayal. It increases the significance of Anakin being redeemed by Padme’s son later on and enhances the themes of family and legacy within the Skywalker saga. Most importantly, Padme doesn’t just die from a broken heart. She still dies, because she kind of had to from a storytelling standpoint, but not for an incredibly weak reason.
Anyway, Padme deserved better. Like in general, but in particular she deserved better in Revenge of the Sith.
I think the most amazing thing about Kylux is that the two of them can be written in so many different ways while still staying true to character.
Is Hux the worldly soldier who came of age in a seedy Academy and slept his way to the top? Or an uptight prude, terrified of having his reputation ruined? Had a little fun in his youth, but is now married to his job? Do his leadership tendencies carry over into his sex life, or is it a relief to give control to someone else for once?
Is Ren the virginal monastic who has dedicated himself to his spiritual life since an early age? Or the celebutante Ben Solo, who slept around in the liberal New Republic until the age of 23? Hates himself for giving in to desire? Uses it to gain strength in the dark side? Does his physical prowess and supernatural powers make him a natural dom? Or do his unruly emotions require external regulation from a trusted partner?
I love that you could make any one of these arguments (or dozens more) and still be able to back it up with evidence from canon. That’s what has kept me interested for over a year now, the well for characterization never runs dry.
Beginnings Must Be Clean: Why KOTOR’s Darkside Ending Is Most In Line With The Philosophy Of Star Wars
So, right off the bat, let’s establish something: I am not nor will I ever claim that the darkside playthrough is the morally correct choice. Darth Revan is a violent dictator. The darkside ending is evil, unequivocally, full stop. This is NOT a post going “Revan is just misunderstood!!! The Jedi are the REAL bad guys!!!edgy!”
I never said that the darkside decisions were right, better, or morally defensible. I said the darkside ending, the story told by the darkside ending, is infinitely more thematically consistent.
Why is this? Well, let’s take a look at what are, in my opinion, the three major recurring themes in all Star Wars media. (Note: “Good vs Evil” is not going to count here; I’m talking about the major themes used to ILLUSTRATE the major, overarching premise of the battle between good and evil.) So what are those themes?
i have short hair, bleached blonde on top and my natural (dark) brown on the sides. today an older guy (maybe 50s?) told me that i should color my hair something other than blonde because right now i look like a toilet brush. i was kinda shocked he would say something like that and i deadpan said “why.” and then i turned around and only have him curt answers every time he spoke. but like… what the fuck is wrong with some people?
I've never asked anyone this because I feel like a total idiot for not knowing, and you talk about it a lot so I think I'll get a good explanation on it. What exactly is an anti? And a stan?
Dont worry you’re probably lucky and relatively drama free on here if you’re asking, and the term ‘anti’ has only been a widespread ‘thing’ with an actual reputation for like….a year or two really? a couple years ago i didn’t see many fights or obnoxious posts about this stuff tbh.
Thing is, an ‘anti’ really shouldn’t be considered a bad thing. if you ask one of them, they’ll say theyre against abuse, harmful sexual practices/kinks, power imbalances, pedophilia etc. and it’s like yeah! of course im against that!
But these days when you see me or most others complaining about ‘antis’ it’s because these people like to attack others for the fiction they’re into by cramming anything they don’t like into those categories. Those things are now buzzwords, that are steadily losing their impact and meaning because of how antis use them to condemn any fictional content they don’t approve of, and therefore they are blurring the definitions of those things, watering them down and making them less meaningful and easier to just ignore. for instance, if you ship a villain with a hero they may call it abuse, and so you’re an abuse apologist. yep. if you ship highschoolers together and you yourself are over 18 then you’re a pedophile. you write fic about them having sex then guess what you’re creating child porn. Even a significant age gap might cause them to call someone a pedophile holy shit, I’ve legit seen people seriously think that an age gap of, say, 10 to 15 years is gross in any circumstance (because omg the older one was 10 when the younger was born!!! aging up is unacceptable!!), no exceptions (which i take personal offense to along with scores of other people because i’ve BEEN IN a relationship like that and they were the best ones, fuck you if you’re going to judge that on a surface level when it’s none of your business and both people are over 18).
To a typical anti, ships or fiction with ‘dark’ elements or morally gray issues involved is bad, and you’re bad for being interested in it even on a fictional level (sometimes even if you’re coping for your own issues through it?), and you’re encouraging minors to think stuff like abuse and age gaps and such are ok in real life etc etc. Being interested in these circumstantially problematic topics in your fiction means, to them, you’re making it like it’s ok for predators to groom kids into harmful real life practices. you’re saying abusive relationships are romantic. You and your fictional explorations are changing reality into a dangerous environment for people who don’t yet know the difference between fiction and reality. There’s no nuance to it, no subjectivity to it, it’s bad, you’re bad. Your fiction should be WHOLESOME! You must ALWAYS constantly extrapolate and elaborate on what points are wrong and which aren’t, clearly and loudly, or else you’re EXCUSING AND NORMALIZING the bad parts!
It doesn’t matter how much you explain that fiction is fiction and that creating fiction does not mean you endorse the subject matter with abandon. And antis are the ones who can’t seem to see a difference between fiction and real life here. it doesn’t matter how much you tell them that an 18 or 19 year old dating a 17 or 16 year old does not mean pedophilia (holy shit, pedophilia is sexualizing PREPUBESCENT children how many ships do you actually see these days that legit involve a child??? And yet I have to see people being called pedophiles every day and being told they are predators because of their freakin run-of-the-mill ships, ALL of which involve people 15/16 and up??? S T O P).
Most significantly, it doesn’t seem to matter to antis that it’s fucking gross and unacceptable for them to harass and judge people over their fictional interests, or bc they are into bdsm/kink, or to be telling people to ‘go choke’ and die because of the fiction they like to explore. it doesn’t matter to them if you point out the common conflicts and dramatic elements and literary exploration used in fiction by pros, because storytelling is storytelling, and ask them why they’re not calling those authors out for such ‘harmful subject matter’ (example–i like to tell them to go attack GRRM for writing Game of Thrones, go bother the creators of Hannibal, go string up Stephen King if people aren’t supposed to enjoy and be interested in ‘dark’ elements in fiction, and explore the shadier sides of human nature in a safe and speculatory way. Please.)
FICTIONAL INTERESTS AND CREATIONS DO NOT MEAN YOU ENDORSE THE SUBJECT MATTER IN REAL LIFE WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. And my interests, as someone who has their own life and their own mind and their own agency, are not going to be dictated by some strangers on the internet telling me what I can or can’t be intrigued by because ‘minors might see it and think it’s ok in reality’. Antis can’t seem to comprehend what’s wrong with that thinking if their lives depended on it.
Anyways…….i’ve ranted enough lmao. As you can see I get real heated about it because it’s just ridiculous and I’m sick of seeing it. Oh, and a ‘stan’ is short for ‘stalker fan’. It’s used in both casual and accusatory ways for both fiction and irl. Casually is just you really love a certain character or celeb and probably will always love/follow them no matter what they do. In an accusatory sense, you might see antis calling someone a stan of a character just for still liking them even though theyre bad (i would be considered a Loki stan for instance….and it might be considered a bad thing, that is, if antis were consistent across the board for which bad guys are unacceptable lol. Funny, you don’t see anyone getting lambasted for liking/shipping/writing about certain villains that are considered ‘acceptable’?? i haven’t figured out exactly why antis target certain things and not others. Oh that’s right, because it doesn’t make any good sense and it’s personal with them and it’s a power move to feel morally superior, and antis are kinda like a hive-mind cult mentality, it’s seldom based on a logic you can apply across the board). ~