The series couldn't use Count Dooku too much, because we all see him die in Revenge of the Sith. So it became necessary for writers to create an apprentice who would go around and do all of his dirty work while he spent time keeping the droid armies and the trade federation in line. So that's when they created Asajj Ventress who became his acolyte and assassin. But the writers skirted the whole "Rule of Two" by saying Dooku would only impart Dark Side training to her, but not actual Sith Teachings. Essentially, what got created are two different things (not to mention an "out" for future writers which can seem a bit cheesy).
So is the "Rule of Two" a smart idea? In the end, Star Wars is a franchise that exists to make money. To restrict the existence of other Sith yet allow as many Jedi to exist as possible seems counterproductive to me. Villains drive the Star Wars storyline; without them there is no story. One could argue that the Rule of Two governs and endorses self interest while tightly controlling overreaching ambition. The Order of the Jedi supports this premise because it decayed from the inside as each started to formulate conflicting ideologies. Think of Qui-Gon Jinn for example.
However, it can also be argued that Ventress and anyone like her that uses the force to do evil yet does not bear the title of "Sith" becomes a massive narrative "cop-out." It's easy to say that when Ventress was created/introduced, the Rule of Two got ignored because now you can have two Sith and an infinite number of things that are "almost Sith" but fundamentally, the viewer is never going to be able to tell you what the difference is. They all wield red lightsabers, look menacing, and dress in black.
Star Wars Rebels just released a glimpse of their very first villain and the picture is included below. Yeah, the new villain dresses in black. Yeah, the new villain has a pair of red lightsabers and looks really badass. According to the New York Comic-Con panel where the character was introduced, the Inquisitor's job is to track down the remaining Jedi Knights left alive after Order 66. However, the Inquisitor is not a Sith. He's an "almost Sith" just like Ventress. Is that just another "cop-out?"
I guess in the end, I won't care and still watch the series on Disney. In fact I'm excited by it. I do hope that Ahsoka Tano comes back. She won't be a "Jedi" technically so I guess that makes her exist outside the whole "all Jedi are dead" thing too.
It just makes me ask, what's in a name anyway? In a universe of "almost Jedi" and "almost Sith" was there ever really a crisis of not finding a teacher or preserving the mystical history of the Force? I know, important questions all, right? ;P Have a great Tuesday.
I can see how that rule of 2 can be restrictive and all attempts to work around it can seem like a copout.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pretty stupid rule anyway. About as stupid as a midquel series.
ReplyDeleteto be fair Sith aren't even Sith. They stole the name.
ReplyDeleteThere is power in titles, which is about as far as I'm going to take that argument lest we devolve into a "who would win: Superman or the Hulk?" situation.
ReplyDeleteLimitations? Probably. But you are dead right about the outs that were included as this universe expands. Granted, the Force mythos still has some explaining to do ... :)
ReplyDeleteAn interesting question, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer an answer.
ReplyDeleteYeah i think all your points are good ones and pretty spot on. It does seem like a bit of cheating, but the rule of two also limits a lot of available conflict options, so what can they do?
ReplyDeletePersonally I think it would be great to do stories at a lower level. Rather than having everything always have to be galaxy-shattering, why not do stories set within the Star Wars universe but at a grittier level? You could do a series about Han Solo's early years or about a different similar smuggler type. You could do another one about a bounty hunter, and so on. I think that what limits a universe is by starting out too huge. If you get down to the personal level, the stories can be endless.
ReplyDeleteOk. I thought I was a Star Wars fan. I thought I had nerd cred. But this post puts me to shame. I mean, I KNEW about the rule, but not about 80% of the other stuff you mentioned. So let me go read up and I'll get back to you on this...
ReplyDeleteSee, if it was me, I might only have two Sith, but maybe a 'Path to Sithdomship' in which characters by being really rotten, vie to be #2 when something happens to one of the existing Sith... (meaning I wouldn't have gone quite so far to limit it in the first place)
ReplyDeleteWith the success of the franchise I have only one question. Who cares? Plus they actually do a great job. Want to know something cranking out awful shows but never goes away. Try the latest slew of Power Rangers redos. Just need to see the promos alone to cringe.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem when you have a massive universe. You don't want to affect the central story that overarches the whole thing, but you still need to be able to have bad guys come in and be as nasty as you need. Perhaps it's a lack of imagination. Why not introduce another Sith pair? Why does it have to be a Sith adversary?
ReplyDeleteThis is why I never got into fan fiction. So many intricacies...
Andrew: The HULK!
ReplyDeleteLet the controversy begin.
I have NO idea whether the Rule of Two is supposed to be an actual rule in the universe of Star Wars, or a rule that writers have to follow like how Uncle Ben had to remain dead.
But either way, it sounds kind of limiting. Artificial limits on powers for wizards, Jedi, superheroes, and the like, seem to me to be more of a crisis of imagination of the writer than an actual thing. I've always wanted someone to write a superpowerful wizard that wasn't bound by any conventions like 'you shouldn't usea lot of magic.' Like, whatever happened to Genie after Aladdin set him free? ULTIMATE POWER, right? So what did he do with it?
So the Rule of Two is an artificial limit on how many Sith there can be -- and that's a failure of imagination. Why not have TONS of Sith and factions within them? Sometimes the machinations within the bad guys' ranks are fascinating. In the original Star Wars, they hinted at those kinds of divisions between the Empire and the Sith, like when that one Empire guy makes fun of Vader's devotion to his ancient religion and then gets choked. So it'd be great if there were like a million Sith and the Jedis had to fight them all -- or if there was a civil war among the Sith. I'd pay to see that.
I don't watch these; but in episode 2, I think it was, when they said there was always two, no more, no less, I took that to mean they always worked in pairs. I didn't think it meant "there are only two" in existence. That does seem limiting for the villains. And the heroes; what if the Jedi kill both at the same time? No more worthy villains. That's sad for the effectiveness of a good-vs-evil plot.
ReplyDelete......dhole
Interesting how even when writers create a fantasy universe, they can write themselves into a corner and find themselves limited and bound by the laws they created.
ReplyDeleteI like what Donna said (above) that "there are only two" could mean the Sith only work in twos. Then again, the writers are free to come up with a whole new set of villains, maybe ones that have been laying low (like in some kind of cocoons while they evolve into greater beings) and are now ready to strike.
I'm thinking they came up with the Rule of Two simply for plot reasons. Audiences would be wondering why there aren't a bunch of Sith running around. But I think it's possible for ex-Sith or quasi-Sith who dabbled in the Dark Side to be doing all kinds of nasty stuff.
ReplyDelete