How can you expect to express your opinions when you thrawt your own attempts to make a sensible argument? I've already shot down every weak point you have said mate (very well, your opinions) but all you have to fall back on is repeating the points I've already broken apart. It's a vicous cycle and you're the victim.
Your not talking about a character here, your talking about a stereotype. Alas, you can't admit that.
I've told you about his character how sees life,what he sees as its purpose,what he will do when there is no jedi left,it might not be as much as we like bu there is no other person who sees life like him. If there is no other person like him than he is original. Most sith have the same basics red saber,dark robes,henchmen,etc. but his view of the galaxy is not like theirs so now were are stuck. Tell me what about his character makes him a copy. How is he a stereotype he does not care for life in the glaxay nor does it seems he want to rule it.Sidious wanted to rule the galaxy,so did Revan,Kun,Bane,Vader,Sadow,etc. You have not destroyed anything.I keep repeating myself because that is what his character is. So I will repeat myself again if I have to.
Kreia says here:"He cares nothing for the Sith or its teachings… or the Jedi. And when the Jedi are dead, he will feed on the galaxy, the Republic, and eventually, consume the Sith as well."
All he cared about was feeding his hunger and saw the only purpose of life was to die. He had no intention be a sith lord that wanted complete control of the galaxy.
I've said this before, and since I have ample time before I bosch to the Pub, I shall mention it again.
Read and understand this carefully.
Vader and Sidious are archetypes. They embellish and define the role they are; they epitomise that characteristic. Dark, brooding and donning Red Lazer Swords. However, too much of "Dark" and "Brooding", too many "Red Lazer Swords" can allow that archetype to become cliché, to the point that similar characters now become stereotypes.
Stereotypes exist on exploiting the characteristics, so much so that they scrape the barrel of the entire role to exist. Nihilus, in nature ironically, tends to scrape the barrel, to exploit. Dark and Brooding they may be, but they are little else than a projection of the idealistic role an archetype represents. Nihilus, Maul, Sion, Bane; for all their little tricks and aesthetic tom foolery are simply Stereotypes, existing only by exploiting the traits upheld by those that came previously.
Nihilus is not an archetype. He is a generic Sith Lord; dark robes, red saber and legions of henchman. In an attempt to give Nihilus some appeal, writers dash some aesthetic flourishes on Nihilus. Now, he isn't just a Sith Lord, he is a Sith Lord with a hungry stomach.
All views, the ones you cite, derive from this one basic attempt by the writers to reinvent the formula. They are collateral and subsequently, fail to tell us anything about his character. You cite his views as originality, when they are not, but merely byproducts of this reinvention of type. Like him or dislike, your choice, but he is anything but original.
Originally posted by Darth Hord
It is an opinion. I say he is very original and you say he is not. For it not to be an opinion there would have to be a canon statement to say he is not original. But since there in none it is an opinion based question.
Post-Structuralist theory. Examine the merits of the structure itself, while incorporating the goals of the authors.
In this case, the writers needed a cliché Star Wars villain, two infact, to fill the role of antagonist. They have a succesful formula in the form fo the archetypal Sith Lord. It reminds us of Vader, it reminds us of Sidious. It sells. As they are aware however, Sith Lords are now (probably irrapairably) cliché, so they must invent all sorts of aesthetic differences to attempt to create something a little different, but not so unfamiliar that the audience will not respond.
They create Nihilus, a stereotype, a generic based Sith Lord, modelled after Revan in design, exploiting the characteristics of that type (Cloak et cetera). However, simply leaving him like that would mean a villain identical to every other Sith, so they attempt to rework the formula more. They end up with the "Force Hunger" concept because the type is so bland and cliché these days, Nihilus wouldn't hack it without living off another idea. He is simply a cliché villain with a little dressing up.
I'm not simply saying it callously. I haven't simply decided Nihilus is unoriginal on a whim.
Notice how the writers of the EU insist on reinventing this formula; Maul gets a flashy saber, Dooku gets some manners, Revan, a conscience and Jacen Solo, hindsight. All of these characters are generic (arguably Jacen has changed drastically) stereotypes exploiting the success of Vader.
Look at the Jedi in the same manner. What Jedi in the PT is original? As a character? Whereas Old Ben and Yoda were once the archetypes, so the type became cliché. What difference, really, is there between Mace Windu and Obi-Wan Kenobi? It's all superficial changes, reinvetions of the same type. Windu gets a purple lightsaber, he looks different and he gets a fancy concept such as Shatterpoint.
Quite frankly, it isn't what I am saying. It is the truth.
Basically you are saying every jedi/sith to be made after the new movies are just "copies" of the originals with a new identity,new story,powers and clothes? And your original statement about Nihilus not being great was because you said he was unoriginal and predictable. Which is what got us started.
Mace Windu and Obi-Wan are nothing alike. And Nilihus' personality is drastically different than most, in that he doesn't really have one. Every action he takes is to satisfy his hunger. He is not in control of himself, his hunger(which is stated by Kreia to be a primal thing) controls him. Whatever his original personality was is gone now.
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Mace Windu and Obi-Wan are nothing alike. And Nilihus' personality is drastically different than most, in that he doesn't really have one. Every action he takes is to satisfy his hunger. He is not in control of himself, his hunger(which is stated by Kreia to be a primal thing) controls him. Whatever his original personality was is gone now.
I agree with but I think he is trying to say that every jedi/sith that were to be made later on are just like copies in a sense that they are unoriginal since most have simliiar beliefs and are look the same.
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Mace Windu and Obi-Wan are nothing alike. And Nilihus' personality is drastically different than most, in that he doesn't really have one. Every action he takes is to satisfy his hunger. He is not in control of himself, his hunger(which is stated by Kreia to be a primal thing) controls him. Whatever his original personality was is gone now.
That was an ignorant post. Re-read the discussion just gone again.
I'm a particuarly cynical person when it comes to petty things like this. Yes, it seems pretty obvious to me that the majority of "Sith" after were the same character with a slight novelty (Maul's saber etc). Star Wars isn't a complex drama, it's all black and white, so usually these characters work. For that, I will enjoy them as much as the next person.
However, on another Sidious and Vader hand are hardly original outside of Star Wars (in the vast world of literature), but they do idealise, in a fanastic way the characteristics they portray in Star Wars.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'm a particuarly cynical person when it comes to petty things like this. Yes, it seems pretty obvious to me that the majority of "Sith" after were the same character with a slight novelty (Maul's saber etc). Star Wars isn't a complex drama, it's all black and white, so usually these characters work. For that, I will enjoy them as much as the next person.However, on another Sidious and Vader hand are hardly original outside of Star Wars (in the vast world of literature), but they do idealise, in a fanastic way the characteristics they portray in Star Wars.
I'm pretty sure we all know the idea of Sidious and Vader is not original themselves but seems to me even if compare them to other villains they are original too. I think you are only thinking in the basic plot for the characters-taking over the world/galaxy,evil,have unnnatural powers,it does not seem you are going in depth into the character and not understanding there personalities and calling special traits such as Nihilus's hunger as novelties.
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
No, your post is ignorant. If I said "ZOMG! NIHILUS IS ORIGINAL CAUSE HES HUNGRY AND STUFF! HE IS PWNAGE! That would be ignorant.
That'd be more ignorant yes, but when reading your poste, I don't find any evidence that you took in anything I said.
Mace and Obi-Wan are alike, but perhaps your simple a little star struck by the presence of two stars in the roles. I admit, that could be problematic for the analogy. Perhaps a better suited (since Mace's role could be considered much more than simply a stereotype, coming from Lucas' pen itself) analogy would be how are Kit Fitso and Obi-Wan Kenobi different?
On the issue of Nihilus you didn't seem to quite understand that he is simply a generic Sith Lord, but one, for the purposes of the game, the writers needed to be powerful. They took "Force Drain" from the first game, took it up a notch and gave their villain an excuse to be dangerous. As I said, every "hunger", every "belief" et cetera, are all derivitive of that main attempt of reinvention. It comes naturally.
Originally posted by Darth Hord
I'm pretty sure we all know the idea of Sidious and Vader is not original themselves but seems to me even if compare them to other villains they are original too. I think you are only thinking in the basic plot for the characters-taking over the world/galaxy,evil,have unnnatural powers,it does not seem you are going in depth into the character and not understanding there personalities and calling special traits such as Nihilus's hunger as novelties.
It's Star Wars, not a Freudian essay, whatever Lucas may claim. Depth is lacking.