Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

That's my main question after seeing The Force Awakens. My guess is that he's an apprentice of Darth Sidious or an old Inquisitor.

That is the million dollar question.

>Snoke
>Inquisitor
>Ew

Maybe fragments of sidious' spirit has come back into that one nasty form, or Darth Plagueis come back to life. Never know.

...........................

People really need to stop bringing up Plagueis. That is the worst thing ever.

Originally posted by Aurbere
People really need to stop bringing up Plagueis. That is the worst thing ever. Agreed tbh

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
........................... ES makes you question whether she has seen or read anything on Star Wars in her entire life.

ES is a she?

Ngl I might consider Plagueis if it weren't for the fact that he was from the PT, which Disney/Abrams are shunning rn.

I too fell on the Plagueis boat

Plagueis would be a best choice for me. Most resonable I would say.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
ES is a she?

No I am not.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
...........................

ANT IS FREE HAHAHHAHA

snoke = sidious to me.

Plagues makes the most sense to me.

Maybe he's an old Inquisitor from the Empire who stepped into power after Sidious and Vader went down?

He's probably Plagueis.

Snoke still might be Plagueis and that makes the most sense to me but we will have to wait years now.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Ngl I might consider Plagueis if it weren't for the fact that he was from the PT, which Disney/Abrams are shunning rn.


There were a couple of Prequel references in this, so I'm guessing those type of references will increase more in the new films as time goes on.

Besides Abrams not directing anymore (Thank Goodness).

Snoke is Snoke...

doubtg he is Plagueis.. will see in 2 years Ep 8 comes out

vell, snoke's just zis guy, you know?

Plageuis... OMG. People just keep wanting stuff to be explained, to be spoon fed to them. I can assure you, there will be no PT stuff in this trilogy. They cut all that short.

And I think he's a very short old man. Hence the hugeness of his projection.

But yeah, Snoke does look very old. I wonder how such a powerful and apparently very old person could have lived with Palpy around. I doubt Palpy would have allowed for someone like that to exist in the same universe. But we will see... for all we know he's Rey's dad.

Originally posted by queeq
I doubt Palpy would have allowed for someone like that to exist in the same universe.

*galaxy. i don't believe they had the tech for intergalactic travel. with that said, i hope that disney isnt waiting to disappoint the crap out of us with some wormhole spam army like in avengers.

Originally posted by queeq
Plageuis... OMG. People just keep wanting stuff to be explained, to be spoon fed to them. I can assure you, there will be no PT stuff in this trilogy. They cut all that short.
I believe the mention of going back to a Clone Army was a nod to the PT.

No idea- a deliberate mystery. Next film either answers or expands that mystery. Works for me.

Snoke....hmm.....

He has to be sith.

Did he look too much like an Orc??? He was the voice of golem but couldnt help but think he looked like a lotr Orc....

Maybe it was the computer digitalis fault...

He's Luke.

Originally posted by queeq
Plageuis... OMG. People just keep wanting stuff to be explained, to be spoon fed to them. I can assure you, there will be no PT stuff in this trilogy. They cut all that short.


I think they avoided PT for this first movie, but will be less and less paranoid to reference it in future movies. And there were some small references in this one anyway.




Originally posted by queeq
for all we know he's Rey's dad.


Episode 8 we find out Snoke is Rey's Dad. Hmm.. That would be super original right in line with TFA.

Snoke, Kylo, Finn, Rey...


These are all names that sound like they're coming from someone who's badly congested.

*sniff* Oh, hey Kylo, don mine my cowd. I Finn dat Rey went outthide fo a Snoke.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I think they avoided PT for this first movie, but will be less and less paranoid to reference it in future movies. And there were some small references in this one anyway.

A reference is something different than bringing back elements from the PT into the storyline. Everyone who lived through the PT is dead and gone.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Snoke, Kylo, Finn, Rey...


These are all names that sound like they're coming from someone who's badly congested.

*sniff* Oh, hey Kylo, don mine my cowd. I Finn dat Rey went outthide fo a Snoke. lol

I believe it's Plagueis.
it makes sense. Was Palpatine sure he killed his old Master?
Maybe physically he killed Plagueis.
But spirituality i'm starting to think not.

Maybe that big shift in the Force was not Palpatine accending to power,
maybe it was Plagueis accending to a higher form.
Plagueis just might have saved himself from death in spirit form and repossessed

Or possessed another muun,that muun being Snok.
I know alot of maybe's, but my point is Plagueis was wise and powerful
his experiments alone back up what I'm trying to say.

His manipulation of the midi chlorians,it's possible Plagueis survived and waited in the Shadows
for Palpatine to fail and finally take his place as ruler of the Empire.

I don't understand how Snoke exists considering Palpatine would likely remove any threats to his rule during the Empire era.

Originally posted by Syndicate
I don't understand how Snoke exists considering Palpatine would likely remove any threats to his rule during the Empire era.

Snoke is supposedly from the uncharted territories, one of the EU novels/comics/whatever stated that Palpy has been actively searching for the source of darkness in those areas.

Originally posted by NewLanceWindu
one of the EU novels/comics/whatever http://memecrunch.com/meme/2C1QD/zod-heresy/image.png

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
http://memecrunch.com/meme/2C1QD/zod-heresy/image.png

dur

Originally posted by juyomaster34
I believe it's Plagueis.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

vd_8-NCN5CU

I am starting to get sold.

Hmmm. That does give me the goosebumps.

Hard to believe snoke is plagueis though. Palpatine did kill him. If he did learn the path to immortality and was resurrected by the darkside, that's possible, but he would basically live forever if that was the case.

There may be some connection between plagueis and snoke but wouldn't say it's him just based on the similar music.

My guess, is that they there is a connection but is with something about the darkside....

Why would they hide Snoke's identity if he is Plagueis? The vast majority of people won't give a ****, nor would the characters. Beyond that they were talking about make the character female for awhile so yeah...

Palpatine told Anakin he killed Plagueis. Heck, he may have even thought he did. Palpatine's word on the subject doesn't make it a certainty, however. For all we know, there is much more to the story that Palpatine didn't tell Anakin. /shrug


What I find more curious is that IF Snoke=Plagueis, then why the name change? Why no 'Darth' title?

Well plagueis didn't rule the galaxy then....palpatine did as he was the most powerful.

You think plageuis was just sleeping or frozen in carbonite...

Originally posted by Galan007
Palpatine told Anakin he killed Plagueis. Heck, he may have even thought he did. Palpatine's word on the subject doesn't make it a certainty, however. For all we know, there is much more to the story that Palpatine didn't tell Anakin. /shrug


What I find more curious is that IF Snoke=Plagueis, then why the name change? Why no 'Darth' title?

In Legends Plagueis was trying to get rid of the rule of two if I recall correctly.

Originally posted by JediRobin23
You think plageuis was just sleeping or frozen in carbonite... Perhaps Plagueis' return from 'death' wasn't instantaneous. Perhaps it was many, many years in the making..?

Originally posted by Lord Stark
In Legends Plagueis was trying to get rid of the rule of two if I recall correctly. I'm trying to steer clear of using that novel for now, because like you said: Legends.

But yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking as well. No more rule of two.

Don't care about the eu, but even in the eu, plagueis looks different, unless his head/brain shrunk....

Or the eu pictures are all wrong.

Anyway, too much eu/legends on this

Originally posted by Galan007


What I find more curious is that IF Snoke=Plagueis, then why the name change? Why no 'Darth' title? Probably the same reason Darth Sidious seemed to drop the Darth title after he declared himself Emperor.

ALSO: It'd be pretty neat story wise if both Anakin and Kylo were seduced by the story of Darth Plagueis the wise. Like Rey was sick or something and Snoke taught him to save her using the Dark Side.

He'll be redeemed when he sees Rey, the very person he fell to the Dark Side for is in danger from Snoke.

I certainly hope not.

Originally posted by ares834
I certainly hope not.

I mean the alternative is some random dude, which I don't really like.

I very much doubt that he is going to be "some random dude".

Originally posted by Lord Stark
He'll be redeemed when he sees Rey, the very person he fell to the Dark Side for is in danger from Snoke. I really don't want this to be the case.

I'd prefer that to be Luke's cue to enter the fray.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Snoke, Kylo, Finn, Rey...


These are all names that sound like they're coming from someone who's badly congested.

*sniff* Oh, hey Kylo, don mine my cowd. I Finn dat Rey went outthide fo a Snoke.

Personally the only name I have a prolem with is General Hux. Every time read it I think of Huxley Pig.

Anyway, I'm hoping Snoke is a brand-new character.

Originally posted by ares834
I very much doubt that he is going to be "some random dude".

I mean there's not really any other villain who is relevant to the 6 movies aside from Plagueis. If the villain doesn't link the six movies it'll be pretty lame honestly. Who would you want Snoke to be?

Originally posted by Galan007
I really don't want this to be the case.

I'd prefer that to be Luke's cue to enter the fray.

Eh, I dunno. I hope so, but I'm not sure. Especially if they're worried about Luke overshadowing everyone.

Originally posted by Lord Stark
I mean there's not really any other villain who is relevant to the 6 movies aside from Plagueis. If the villain doesn't link the six movies it'll be pretty lame honestly. Who would you want Snoke to be?

Don't see anything lame about it. But, I feel, bringing back Plagueis could easily undermine Palpatine.

As for what I want, well pretty much anything else. He could be some ancient dark sider or an apprentice of either Vader or Palpatine (though I doubt this considering he says he watched the GE rise and fall in the novel). As long as he has an interesting backstory like his face has I'll be happy.

Ugh, we don't need to have a callback to a character that had no screen-time, was only mentioned once, and was verbally killed off. Why are people so afraid of Snoke being an original creation? We don't need a pre-established backstory to very goddamn character.


Snoke is Plagueis.
Rey is Luke's daughter.
Finn is Lando's bastard.
Poe is the son of a clone soldier.
BB8 was built by Biggs.


God forbid we get a new character with his own story not established in the other trilogies.

Poe's parent have already been introduced. His mother was a Rebel pilot and his dad was in the military, but he wasn't a clone.

Originally posted by juggernaut74
Poe's parent have already been introduced. His mother was a Rebel pilot and his dad was in the military, but he wasn't a clone. http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/soccer-miss.gif

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ugh, we don't need to have a callback to a character that had no screen-time, was only mentioned once, and was verbally killed off. Why are people so afraid of Snoke being an original creation? We don't need a pre-established backstory to very goddamn character.

Yes we do. Its not just Star Wars: The Force Awakens, its Star Wars Episode VII. Its supposed to be a continuation of the original story. It will significantly detract from the story if some random guy can threaten the existence of the New Republic, Luke and the other heroes.



Aside from 1 and 2 the rest of them are retarded. And as for 2, a huge part of the Star Wars saga has always been about the Skywalker family. That being said I'd be chill if Rey wasn't Luke's daughter. But the villain should be someone familiar that adds a level of threat on the level of Sidious. The only one in the canon I can think of is Plagueis.



Yes, God forbid that. Its far less interesting imo. Snoke is this ancient dark side being who's watched the rise and fall of the galactic empire. Why is he never mentioned before? Yes I'd prefer Plagueis to ass pull, villain of the week Snoke

@ares: it could be used to undermine Palps. OR indirectly hype him. Like 'Snoke was afraid to move with Sidious till in the picture'.

Originally posted by Lord Stark
Yes we do. Its not just Star Wars: The Force Awakens, its Star Wars Episode VII. Its supposed to be a continuation of the original story. It will significantly detract from the story if some random guy can threaten the existence of the New Republic, Luke and the other heroes. Do you know what "pre-established" means? It means it was already set up in a previous film and now it's being used here. Luke is a pre-established character. So is 3P0. Or Leia.


Kylo is new, Hux is new, Poe is new, Finn is new, Rey is new, Maz Kanata is new, Max von Sydow is new, and so far, Snoke is new. Just like how the Emperor was new in ESB, and we didn't have to get a flashback trilogy to his rise to power to buy in to the fact that he ruled the galaxy. It's a space adventure, not a biographical documentary.



Originally posted by Lord Stark
Aside from 1 and 2 the rest of them are retarded. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sambergawkward.gif

Originally posted by Lord Stark
But the villain should be someone familiar that adds a level of threat on the level of Sidious. The only one in the canon I can think of is Plagueis. It "should" be? Why? Like, aside from people who don't feel comfortable unless the dozen or so main characters of these films in a vast galaxy are all closely interconnected with each other, why "should" the new villain in the new sequel trilogy have to have been mentioned or used in the last trilogies? Why can't it be a new character who is revealed to the audience to have had a connection to Palpatine?


He could have been the Emperor's accomplice, the Emperor's brother, the Emperor's secret Super Emperor, or the Emperor's other apprentice. Or something. Like, let him have a connection to Palpatine, sure. By why Plagueis specifically? Why MUST it be something we heard in the PT or OT? Why can't he be someone connected to Palpatine or Vader, and still be wholly original in his own right?



Originally posted by Lord Stark
Yes, God forbid that. Its far less interesting imo. Snoke is this ancient dark side being who's watched the rise and fall of the galactic empire. Why is he never mentioned before? Yes I'd prefer Plagueis to ass pull, villain of the week Snoke Has that already been established in a cross-section or encyclopedia somewhere? That Snoke watched from the shadows the rise and fall of the Empire? If so... ehhhh. Not a fan of that. Too much of the in the SW franchise over the years. The True Sith, the Lost Sith, the One Sith, the Rule of Two, the Vong. Even Thrawn kind of. All in the background biding their time. Overused.

If it's not established, then... not an issue. He's an up-and-comer Dark Overlord who was connected to the Emperor? Or was the leader of a cult of Palpatine worshipers? Iunno. Don't care either, so long as it's handled well. But the weight of it's handling certainly does not require Snoke's origin to have been mentioned in the other films.

As for Snoke watching the rise and fall of the Empire, it's from the novelization.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you know what "pre-established" means? It means it was already set up in a previous film and now it's being used here. Luke is a pre-established character. So is 3P0. Or Leia.


Kylo is new, Hux is new, Poe is new, Finn is new, Rey is new, Maz Kanata is new, Max von Sydow is new, and so far, Snoke is new. Just like how the Emperor was new in ESB, and we didn't have to get a flashback trilogy to his rise to power to buy in to the fact that he ruled the galaxy. It's a space adventure, not a biographical documentary.

Yeah in ESB then he was revealed to be a villain a part of a 1000+ year rivalry between the Jedi and Sith. The Sith are the rivals of the Jedi, have been for eternity. I fully expect Snoke to be a Sith and if he's a Sith Plagueis makes the most

Kylo is new but he has a pretty clear connection to previous movies through his grandfather Vader. Rey is likely a Skywalker so same thing. And yes I'm not saying new elements aren't great but the point of having the saga is to tie them together. As I said if this were a reboot rather than a sequel I'd be down for a completely new unaffiliated villain.



Because it adds a little something called gravitas






Established in the novel. Pretty much as soon as I heard that I thought Plageuis was the best fit.



It doesn't but it'd be a nice tie in to the Prequels imo.

Me too. Again, I doubt it's Plagueis. You'd need a lot of explaining of where this guy went and how he came back after, who knows many years...

^That already needs to be explained with his 'watching the empire rise and fall'. He was likely weakened when Sidious 'killed him'

The Plagueis thing is too much of an insider perspective. He's really just a throwaway reference in ROTS- and committed fans tend to pick up on and speculate on references like that.

But it's a name that is meaningless to the writers of the new stories (and, to be honest, also meaningless to most people watching the film). I am pretty sure they have created their own villain. I prefer it that way because you want something new like that in a sequel story- we already have enough troubles with them not being adventurous enough.

i hate the idea, but i would not be so quick to write it off.

But I am totally unconvinced that anything is pointing at it. All we have is that a. he's a spare character that has been mentioned but not seen- part of an effort by a totally different creative team- and b. that John Williams uses low choral voices to show dark side menace.

Against that, we have the total lack of a Darth title, the fact that Kylo is not a Sith, that Andy Serkis said it was a brand new character- and the overall 'doesn't actually achieve anything-ness' of the whole idea.

the trouble with the theory is its convenience. especially for writers looking to unify this story with the PT and OT as opposed to it being a mostly separate story.

the temptation may well have been there to canonize palpatine's indirect claim that plageous created anakin, which could mean that the skywalkers were created by an agent of the darkside, cursing him and his decedents, as you yourself have similarly hypothesized (the skywalker curse, i mean). it's all just too damn convenient and so i fear it may come true.

i really dont want to debate it though because i hate defending bad ideas.

I'm a bit iffy on that 'unify the story with the PT' bit though- my impression is that they are keeping that at arm's length. I've been pleasantly surprised that any stylistic links made it at all, but a direct continuity call out like that would surprise me greatly. I'd need to be far more convinced.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Plagueis thing is too much of an insider perspective. He's really just a throwaway reference in ROTS- and committed fans tend to pick up on and speculate on references like that.

But it's a name that is meaningless to the writers of the new stories (and, to be honest, also meaningless to most people watching the film). I am pretty sure they have created their own villain. I prefer it that way because you want something new like that in a sequel story- we already have enough troubles with them not being adventurous enough.


Sure, that's a fair point. But do you know who else was a throwaway reference in ANH?
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150806031110/villains/images/4/42/Darth_Sidious_.jpeg

that wasn't a throwaway reference, though. he was the ruler of the empire, directly and unavoidably relevant to the present/future story.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Plagueis thing is too much of an insider perspective. He's really just a throwaway reference in ROTS- and committed fans tend to pick up on and speculate on references like that.

But it's a name that is meaningless to the writers of the new stories (and, to be honest, also meaningless to most people watching the film). I am pretty sure they have created their own villain. I prefer it that way because you want something new like that in a sequel story- we already have enough troubles with them not being adventurous enough.

I agree with Ush.

The only PT character being Snoke I could stomach is Jar Jar.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that wasn't a throwaway reference, though. he was the ruler of the empire, directly and unavoidably relevant to the present/future story.

Yeah it was. Palpatine was initially going to be a figure head for ministers like Tarkin.

"Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic. Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears."- 1976 concept of Palpatine

It was only later did George come up with the concept of one villainous ruler and the embodiment of evil. Shit even Palpatine being a Sith Lord didn't come till the Prequels

It's not a comparable example at all. Figurehead or not, the heroes were fighting against the Emperor and his Empire.

Originally posted by ares834
It's not a comparable example at all. Figurehead or not, the heroes were fighting against the Emperor and his Empire.

It wasn't his Empire. Did you even read the passage? The entire plot could have easily gone on without a single on screen appearance by the Emperor.

He was originally a background character who became the single biggest villain in the SWs universe.

Originally posted by Lord Stark
Yeah in ESB then he was revealed to be a villain a part of a 1000+ year rivalry between the Jedi and Sith. The Sith are the rivals of the Jedi, have been for eternity. I fully expect Snoke to be a Sith and if he's a Sith Plagueis makes the most The PT gave him a Sithly background, but as of the OT alone, Palpatine was still convincing and believable as the Big Bad of the Empire. Mentioned in ANH, seen in ESB, met (and defeated) in RotJ.

Simple. We got who and what he was without an elaborate backstory, and we didn't need to see his rise to power. His backstory wasn't the point of the film. His antagonism of and defeat by the heroes was. Why can't that be the same for Snoke? We don't need a detailed backstory, you just want one.

Originally posted by Lord Stark
Kylo is new but he has a pretty clear connection to previous movies through his grandfather Vader. Rey is likely a Skywalker so same thing. And yes I'm not saying new elements aren't great but the point of having the saga is to tie them together. As I said if this were a reboot rather than a sequel I'd be down for a completely new unaffiliated villain. You can tie the trilogies together without making all the connections pre-established. That's what I'm arguing against. Pre-establishing Snoke by making him Plagueis. He doesn't need to be Plagueis in order for him to be connected to Palpatine and the Empire. In the next film we could learn he was a student, an accomplice, an ally, a relative, or anything. He could even have been his true master--revealing that the Plagueis legend is just a legend used for storytelling or manipulation.



Originally posted by Lord Stark
Because it adds a little something called gravitas No, it doesn't. It adds a safe sense of comfort for those who feel it couldn't possibly be any other way.




Originally posted by Lord Stark
Established in the novel. Pretty much as soon as I heard that I thought Plageuis was the best fit. It fits, but again it isn't necessary. Just convenient.



Originally posted by Lord Stark
It doesn't but it'd be a nice tie in to the Prequels imo. Eh. I'm all in favour of moving on from them. Don't contradict them, but never acknowledge them either.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The PT gave him a Sithly background, but as of the OT alone, Palpatine was still convincing and believable as the Big Bad of the Empire. Mentioned in ANH, seen in ESB, met (and defeated) in RotJ.

Except as I mentioned before the Emperor was not intended to be the big bad in ANH.



He's a fallen Skywalker and the grandson of Darth Vader...not to mention the son of Han Solo. He's using his relation to previously established characters to establish his own validity as a villain. Do you really think anyone would care about Kylo if he was some random dude Snoke, another random dude picked up?

The answer is no.



Of course he doesn't need to be Plagueis. But I think he'd frankly be a better villain than random dude who watched the rise and fall of the galactic empire. With the Sith being established by the Prequels as the 1,000+ year antagonists for the Jedi, it'd seem odd if suddenly for the last 3 films it wasn't the Sith.




Did you read your own definition. It would add substance and weight to the story. I'm not really comforted by it, but I do think an ancient Sith Lord is a far better villain than some random dude.

It kind of loosens the credibility of the Sith if some random Dark Side warlord can outdo the Empire that was the culmination of 1,000 years of planning. It also destroys the credibility of any sort of long term peace in the galaxy if any random never before mentioned character can threaten galactic peace by seducing a ****ing teenager into giving into his hormones.



Its not necessary, but as I said adds far more weight.




That's retarded. This isn't X-Men: Days of Future Past where you can right out an inconvenient movie through lol time travel. The Prequels are not only a part of the Star Wars universe, they are an integral part.

Originally posted by Lord Stark
It wasn't his Empire. Did you even read the passage? The entire plot could have easily gone on without a single on screen appearance by the Emperor.

He was originally a background character who became the single biggest villain in the SWs universe.

Yes I read it and?

They simply changed their intentions about the character. Considering the Rebels were fighting the Empire, the Emperor being a villain was a natural evolution of the story. Nor did it contradict anything.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Originally posted by ares834
Yes I read it and?

They simply changed their intentions about the character. Considering the Rebels were fighting the Empire, the Emperor being a villain was a natural evolution of the story. Nor did it contradict anything.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

So why can't the intentions about Plagueis not also be changed? The Jedi not fighting the Sith isn't similar? Snoke will eventually have to be a Sith. There's only one Sith Lord in the entirety of the canon who has not appeared on screen. Is that not also a how do you say, natural progression?


Plagueis' survival wouldn't be much of a contradiction either.

Snoke doesn't have to be a Sith. And no, it's not a natural progression as he is a throwaway mention and furthermore one who is dead.

Among the dead characters I want him to be Master Sifo-Dyas or a clone of his

Originally posted by ares834
Snoke doesn't have to be a Sith. And no, it's not a natural progression as he is a throwaway mention and furthermore one who is dead.

Considering the 6 movies and two television shows dedicated to showing the Sith as the mortal enemy of the Jedi, I strongly disagree. If Snoke isn't a Sith it'll be bad writing imo.

I'm not saying Snoke being Plagueis is a natural progression, I'm saying Snoke being a Sith is a natural progression considering they've been an overarching antagonists for 6 movies and two television shows.

Sorry, comparing the mentions of the Emperor in ANH and Plagueis in ROTS doesn't convince at all- putting an Emperor into an Empire in thre first part of a developing story is far more obviously something to be explored than adding a relatively trivial background detail like Plagueis into a story already completed. He's already served his need, and as I mention before, he's now effectively meaningless. Using him adds nothing- indeed, perhaps rather less- than coming up with a fresh idea.

I think it is slightly absurd- and rather limited in vision- to outright declare that Snoke not being a Sith is bad writing. Give other ideas a chance. Let these people tell their own story. I would personally claim that as the entire point of the original six films is that Anakin permanently destroys the Sith, saying that there was another one left is hardly brilliant writing- I'd live with it, but I'd much prefer an alternative.

The Sith lost in a pretty sweet swan song. Let those losers rest forever

^ Of course it's mentioned in Episode 7 the Force isn't in Balance so Anakin has not successfully completed his Prophecy into Ep.7 anyway.

That being said "Sith" are just a cult of Darksiders, so we know there can be many other dark side followers.

Still there is the risk of confusing the GA saying these new Darksiders are not Sith IMO.

Indeed, I see no reason of dwelling with the Sith when you can get a different cult with new beliefs/abilities.

It'd be cool if the Force is unbalanced for reasons unrelated with previous plots too.

Actually the line wasn't that the Force was unbalanced but that there'd be no hope for balance without the Jedi- that's a bit different. Wiping the Sith balanced it but it still needs to be kept that way.

With regards to the GA- I doubt even half of them know what a Sith is. I wouldn't worry about confusion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


With regards to the GA- I doubt even half of them know what a Sith is. I wouldn't worry about confusion.


Really? I've found it's become a name quite well known as the opposite of Jedi. But agree it wouldn't be much of an issue, just as long as there's a line differentiating the new cult. Just like the line explaining these Troopers are not Clones in TFA.

I wonder Snoke is a failed apprentice of the Emperor that was presumed dead?

Or maybe he was a Jedi that survived order 66 and went to the Darkside while hiding.

It does seem like he has had training before because he is passing his knowledge unto Kylo.

Serkis mentioned that he is thousands of years old- that's not completely authoritative but it seems likely. He seems like an anti-Yoda. It leaves the door open for him being a non-Sith Dark Sider from an earlier time... or not. We'll see.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Serkis mentioned that he is thousands of years old- that's not completely authoritative but it seems likely. He seems like an anti-Yoda. It leaves the door open for him being a non-Sith Dark Sider from an earlier time... or not. We'll see. I didn't know that.

That would be a pretty interesting story to unfold.

I wonder if they will make him part of a secret cult of Darksiders. Like the Sith tried to take power by force while they bid their time to strike when the Galaxy was at it's weakest.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Serkis mentioned that he is thousands of years old- that's not completely authoritative but it seems likely. He seems like an anti-Yoda. It leaves the door open for him being a non-Sith Dark Sider from an earlier time... or not. We'll see.

I hope it's not gonna be Darth Bane.

it would kinda cheese up the saga for me if he turns out to be a sith. kinda contradicts yoda's slippery slope warning to luke about the dark path, if its also required that a dark jedi be indoctrinated into one specific ancient cult. bleh

Yeah bleh...

There is the thing though that we have two little things that point to who he is:

1. Serkis said Snoke was thousands of years old... And the SW site says he is strong with the dark side.

2. He saw the rise and fall of the Empire... so I dunno... if he is a Sith or an ancient Dark Side user... it diminishes Palpatine... plus it raises a lot of weird questions.

Again: I hope it's Jar Jar.

I like the idea of Snoke being a rival dark sider to the Sith. Perhaps another dark side religious faction that lost to the Sith thousands of years ago?

Snoke could be the vestiges of leadership from that rival Dark Side faction. Biding his time until the last of the Sith died out (perhaps he was feeding off of their demise and becomes stronger with each Sith's death?"

Clearly, he is very well trained in Force arts because he wishes to train Kylo.

Snoke is thousands of years old? Where was that stated? I've looked through a few interviews by Serkis and couldn't find it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like the idea of Snoke being a rival dark sider to the Sith. Perhaps another dark side religious faction that lost to the Sith thousands of years ago?

Snoke could be the vestiges of leadership from that rival Dark Side faction. Biding his time until the last of the Sith died out (perhaps he was feeding off of their demise and becomes stronger with each Sith's death?"

Clearly, he is very well trained in Force arts because he wishes to train Kylo. Yeah that could be fun to see.

Originally posted by ares834
Snoke is thousands of years old? Where was that stated? I've looked through a few interviews by Serkis and couldn't find it.

Actually, double-checking that- a number of sites SAY Serkis said this, but they don't quote him, so put this one down to Chinese whispers.

Serkis did imply he was very old, though.

Apparently they experimented with the idea of Snoke being female, so that makes it less likely that he's Plagueis (who was obviously a pre-determined male).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, double-checking that- a number of sites SAY Serkis said this, but they don't quote him, so put this one down to Chinese whispers.

Serkis did imply he was very old, though.

they may have gotten his profile confused with maz kanata, who is in fact over a thousand years old.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I think it is slightly absurd- and rather limited in vision- to outright declare that Snoke not being a Sith is bad writing. Give other ideas a chance. Let these people tell their own story. I would personally claim that as the entire point of the original six films is that Anakin permanently destroys the Sith, saying that there was another one left is hardly brilliant writing- I'd live with it, but I'd much prefer an alternative.

Eh. It would be akin to (in my opinion) Luke saying 'Yeah I'm not a Jedi anymore, just a Light Sith'. I'd find the lack of Sith disturbing. But yeah it could work.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Serkis mentioned that he is thousands of years old- that's not completely authoritative but it seems likely. He seems like an anti-Yoda. It leaves the door open for him being a non-Sith Dark Sider from an earlier time... or not. We'll see.

I mean this is a fair point. I didn't mind the Ones of Mortis in spite of them coming out of nowhere. So I guess I need to wipe the cum of the original 6 out of my eyes. But I like the idea of Snoke being a Sith. But now that I think about it Maz Kanata does say she's seen the Dark Side take multiple forms.

I, personally, want Snoke to *not* be a sith. 1-6 were to a large extent, the story of the fall of the Sith. We've already got the Legends timeline to see what Sith constantly reoccuring like weeds is like, and besides, the Sith were a specific philosophy of the dark side. If it's something else, then we will get a contrast between them and the sith.

I dunno... I hop he doesn't turn out to be a hobbit or a troll. Coz/ he looks like a combo of the two.

So we can expect another 18 months of "Is he or isn't he Plagueis"


http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/dec/30/star-wars-the-force-awakens-villain-snoke-darth-plagueis

I fear so... But I agree with that article.

I agree that it shouldn't be Palgueis. The last point in that article, for me, is the main reason why:

If he comes back, then the whole story of the Sith being overthrown, which was to bring balance back to the force, completely negates that. The first 6 films would be undercut. It would be like taking a shit on the entire story. That can't happen. It has to be a different group. A group that does not represent an unnatural imbalance in the force.

Ushagarak has talked about this before and I forgot how he explained it but the Dark Side is not necessarily an imbalance to the force. It is how the Sith use the Force which is the imbalance. So there can be a Dark Side Force user that does not create imbalance to the Force. Ushgarak, maybe you could clear that up: I don't quite understand how that all worked.

Well we are always somewhat groping here because GL never put the explanation on screen and we have to interpret as best we can from his interviews and what-not.

From what GL suggests, it seems the Light Side is fundamentally about balanced symbiosis- working together for the common good- and the Dark Side is about imbalanced paraticism- things feed off each other to destruction (he tries t put this symbiosis thing in with the Gungans and Naboo in TPM, but like a lot of his grand ideas for the PT it's not actually very well realised on-screen).

That would suggest it need not necessarily be the Sith that do it- any time the Dark Side becomes triumphant there is a Balance issue. But the tenor of the previous filsm certainly seemed to be that it was the Sith who had the cosmic power to do the ob; they were the big threat.

Where that leaves Snoke is unclear, but I find it significant how worried he is about the Jedi returning. As was mentioned at the start of the film, there can be no balance without the Jedi, so they are needed to keep it in balance. One interpretation here is that whilst the Sith had the power actively to imbalance the Force even as the Jedi were trying to protect it, Snoke is only in power in the Jedi's absence.

Anyway, I agree with you- I think I raised that point about the whole point of the first six films in one of these threads earlier.

The Visual Dictionary states that Snoke encourages Kylo to use both the Light and Dark sides of the force. Evidently Snoke believes that amalgamating both sides creates the ideal Force user:
http://i.imgur.com/X2Egw6L.jpg

If Snoke himself practices the same discipline, then perhaps they wouldn't throw the Force out of balance, as both sides are still being used equally?

Dunno. srug

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well we are always somewhat groping here because GL never put the explanation on screen and we have to interpret as best we can from his interviews and what-not.

From what GL suggests, it seems the Light Side is fundamentally about balanced symbiosis- working together for the common good- and the Dark Side is about imbalanced paraticism- things feed off each other to destruction (he tries t put this symbiosis thing in with the Gungans and Naboo in TPM, but like a lot of his grand ideas for the PT it's not actually very well realised on-screen).

That would suggest it need not necessarily be the Sith that do it- any time the Dark Side becomes triumphant there is a Balance issue. But the tenor of the previous filsm certainly seemed to be that it was the Sith who had the cosmic power to do the ob; they were the big threat.

Where that leaves Snoke is unclear, but I find it significant how worried he is about the Jedi returning. As was mentioned at the start of the film, there can be no balance without the Jedi, so they are needed to keep it in balance. One interpretation here is that whilst the Sith had the power actively to imbalance the Force even as the Jedi were trying to protect it, Snoke is only in power in the Jedi's absence.

Anyway, I agree with you- I think I raised that point about the whole point of the first six films in one of these threads earlier.

Thanks, that does help. But there are still some unanswered questions that we'll have to wait for Ep 8 or even 9 to find out. I hope Ep 8 delivers some answers.

Originally posted by Galan007
The Visual Dictionary states that Snoke encourages Kylo to use both the Light and Dark sides of the force. Evidently Snoke believes that amalgamating both sides creates the ideal Force user:
http://i.imgur.com/X2Egw6L.jpg

If Snoke himself practices the same discipline, then perhaps they wouldn't throw the Force out of balance, as both sides are still being used equally?

Dunno. srug


This is an interesting piece of information. Ren seemed like quite the Dark Side user after the events of TFA, though. There doesn't seem to be any lightside to him, at all since he killed Han. He seems just as far gone as Vader after Vader killed Obi Wan (but I am contradicting myself because Vader turns back...but what turned Vader back was "a father's love for his son"...so I'm not sure he can be redeemed like Vader was).

The same entry still credits Kylo as a 'dark side user'... He is evidently just encouraged to use light-sided abilities/powers as well. Maybe that mixture of light and dark is enough to keep the Force relatively balanced? Not sure... Just trying to connect the dots, is all.

Although The Visual Dictionary also implies that Snoke has multiple apprentices, and Kylo is simply the most powerful among them... We'll just have to wait and see how many of its factoids pan out in the films, I guess.

Originally posted by Galan007
The Visual Dictionary states that Snoke encourages Kylo to use both the Light and Dark sides of the force. Evidently Snoke believes that amalgamating both sides creates the ideal Force user:
http://i.imgur.com/X2Egw6L.jpg

If Snoke himself practices the same discipline, then perhaps they wouldn't throw the Force out of balance, as both sides are still being used equally?

Dunno. srug

Dark side = imbalance. Using both- and I am not asure that's really what the VD means- would be imbalanced. The only way to be balanced is using the Light Side, no Dark.

We've only ever seen Ren be out and out Dark Side with his Force use, anyway. It's all anger and aggression.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dark side = imbalance. Using both- and I am not asure that's really what the VD means- would be imbalanced. The only way to be balanced is using the Light Side, no Dark. I thought the existence of Mortis and The Ones in TCW showed us that both sides(light and dark) are needed to maintain proper balance on a universal level..? /shrug

Originally posted by Galan007
I thought the existence of Mortis and The Ones in TCW showed us that both sides(light and dark) are needed to maintain proper balance on a universal level..? /shrug

As that is so clearly out of step with everything else we are shown and told, I think we'll have to discount that one.

Yup, balance=light. It has always been that simple in SW.

hardly that simple imo.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As that is so clearly out of step with everything else we are shown and told, I think we'll have to discount that one. Like?

this is exactly why i hated this 'TCW=cannon" rule ever since george lucas announced it.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Like?

The entire concept of the Prophecy and the existence of Anakin and Luke. This is literally the central plot of the first six episodes. Destroying the Sith brings balance to the Force- this is the entire point.

Yup. Lucas explained this many times.

ok if it's so simple, then why did the jedi care about bringing balance to the force in ep1, when they clearly needed to be convinced that the sith still even existed? the prophecy was to "bring" balance. not "restore".

They weren't sure if it was time for the Prophecy yet. By the end of TPM, they had concluded it was, because in Maul they had proof it was the Sith.

is it really that the jedi create balance in the force, or are they just preventing darkside users from creating imbalance?

Originally posted by queeq
Yup. Lucas explained this many times. Correct, he's stated multiple times that the Force is like Ying and yang and balance in the Force = light/dark in equal measure.

He's also said that the Jedi Order's interpretation of the prophecy is wrong. I'll try and find quotes when I'm on my computer.

@Ush, destroying the Sith doesn't prove that balance in the Force = light, all it proves is that the Sith were causing the imbalance.

Nowhere in the films is the destruction of the Sith said to cause light side dominance, only balance. Which could just as easily mean the dark side retreating from dominance back into equilibrium.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Correct, he's stated multiple times that the Force is like Ying and yang and balance in the Force = light/dark in equal measure.

no he didn't

Indeed he did not- you have that wrong I am afraid, Beniboybling.

The Sith represent the Dark Side. As GL says, in destroying the Sith, Anakin restores balance by destroying evil. Not becoming in equilibrium with evil- which would be completely stupid- but destroying it.

Light Side dominance IS balance- it is the desired state. You don't cure cancer by having half your body ok and the other half cancerous. You get rid of the cancer- then your body is in balance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As that is so clearly out of step with everything else we are shown and told, I think we'll have to discount that one. But it was literally an entire arc in TCW that was devoted to not only telling --but showing-- us what it takes to bring balance to the force on a universal scale.... And both the light and dark aspects were required.

And since TCW is on equal footing with the films in terms of canonicity, it's hard to just dismiss it... Especially given that it is also some of the most recent evidence we have on the subject(and typically the most recent info=the most canon.)

Thoughts?

'Recent' is not actually a qualification for 'more accurate', especially when it's from more subsidiary material. No matter which way we look at it, the films are the more important thing to consider.

The TCW plotline is the one that's out of step from the mainstream. It really can only be seen as in error, or as an in-universe philosophical position that is incorrect. Otherwise you actively derail the plot- or even the point- of the films.

TCW had a ship enter hyperspace in atmosphere/near high gravity too- the possibility of which would make several Star Wars scenes ludicrous; why does Han not just do it when escaping Tatooine or the Death Star? It's prone to error.

The plot of the PT/OT did revolve around balance to some extent.

...Though you can interpret that a few ways, so I see what you're saying.

Indeed, there is no reason why someone cannot make new creative interpretations, but when you have two in ostensibly the same continuity that appear to contradict, for continuity purposes you pretty much have to choose which one you are going with, and I think the films are always going to win that one. I certainly think TFA is in that vein (though we shall see, of course).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Indeed, there is no reason why someone cannot make new creative interpretations,

yeah but when those new interpretations are canonized, by default, it's damn sloppy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Sith represent the Dark Side. As GL says, in destroying the Sith, Anakin restores balance by destroying evil. Not becoming in equilibrium with evil- which would be completely stupid- but destroying it.

Light Side dominance IS balance- it is the desired state. You don't cure cancer by having half your body ok and the other half cancerous. You get rid of the cancer- then your body is in balance. Yes the Sith represent the dark side but you are again assuming that eradicating the Sith would result in eradicating the dark side. This is nowhere stated, it is an assumption on your part. Simply because they are the poster boys doesn't mean they embody it in its entirety, merely its attempt to dominate the light side.

What the dark side embodies i.e. malevolence, anger, hatred, fear arguably exists in all forms of life. You can't eradicate it, only balance it out with positive forces, forces i.e. good, that need "bad" to exist.

the existence of evil is not synonymous with the sith. one is a fact of human nature and the other is an ancient death cult.

GL said that anakin brings balance to the force by destroying the sith.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
"I wanted to have this mythological footing because I was basing the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, the good side, the evil side, and they both need to be there. Most religions are built on that, whether it's called yin and yang, God and the devil - everything is built on the push-pull tension created by two sides of the equation. Right from the very beginning, that was the key issue in 'Star Wars.'"

-George Lucas, Los Angeles Times, 2002

That statement from Lucas was driven home in TCW.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the existence of evil is not synonymous with the sith. one is a fact of human nature and the other is an ancient death cult.

GL said that anakin brings balance to the force by destroying the sith. A few decades of balance, maybe. /shrug

welp...one thing we can agree on is that it's NOT all that simple.

Perhaps something worth noting is that in the first six films the Jedi are never stated to use the light side. They just use "the Force".

And yet in none of those quotes does GL say what you said he did- that Light and Dark have to be there in equal measure. Don't try and pull that 'folly' nonsense when you can't even back what you said; the 'ying/yang' line is just one of several sources he mentions- like God and the Devil, which is from a mythology not remotely about equal measures- where mythological sources have two competing elements. You keep seeing 'balance between good and evil' and then just assume in your head that it's about having equal amounts of each, which is simply a clumsy way to read it, particularly with everything else mentioned, where it is clear that Balance is about good STOPPING evil.

The point remains the same- it is the Light Side that brings balance. Go back and read all that stuff again about symbiosis vs. cancer. Balanced is equilibrium; it is not the even matching of symbiosis and cancer, it is ALL symbiosis. Whatever the desirable state of affairs is, it is the Light Side that brings it. To have that balance, the Dark Side must be opposed at all times. You can't have 'too much' Light Side, because it is the Light Side that puts things in the correct position; the Dark Side buggers it up.

It's such a ludicrous idea that we somehow need to tolerate a sufficient amount of evil- where is that reflected in the films at any point? What would be the use or benefit of it? How would it be, in any way, a desirable state of affairs? ALL of the films are about the aim of good triumphing over evil. What, are we meant to think that if the Rebellion wins there will be 'too much good' now? Are we meant to think that force users should strive to use an equal amount of light and dark side, or is it exceptionally clear that the only desirable outcome is to reject the Dark entirely, else people will suffer? The entire thrust of the series is about the undesirability of evil. As soon as you start talking about there being a need to have an equal amount of good and evil, you have the very fundamentals of the entirety of Star Wars wrong- and then you start misreading GL comments thinking they say what they do not- and he has never said about equal measures.

The 'destroy evil' line is from GL- ghere's the quote:

"Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe..."

Obviously it's not literal if you want to go down the 'all humans can have some evil in them' route but that's being pedantic; he meant it in the sense of taking out the forces of darkness (as he applies it to Anakin).

Regardless of what you say what GL would and would not allow, the TCW plotline is contradictory- it is the only one saying you need even amounts of each side and that Light Side dominance is undesirable, whereas GL makes it clear that the Light Side victorious is what brings Balance. That's just something that has to be dealt with when talking continuity. You can go with one or the other but not both. The films are always going to represent the theme of evil needing to be destroyed by good. That one TCW story is the weird outlier.

Alright, Ush. Let's not lose our heads. Anyway as I understand it your main points of content seem to be:

1. The dark side is a cancer that needs to be eradicated.
2. The light side is clearly made out to be an agent of balance.

The first point is contradicted by the fact that Lucas states that the dark side/evil etc. "need to be there" - they are necessary elements of an equation. A cancer is not necessary, it does not need to be there. It not only needs to be stopped, it needs to be destroyed completely or the subject will die. This is not the case with the dark side.

You talk about "balance" and "equilibrium" and yet completely fail to engage with the definitions. The definition of balance is to bring into equilibrium, and equilibrium is according to the English dictionary:

a. The condition of equal balance between opposing forces

So when Lucas says balance i.e. equilibrium between "good and evil" he can only mean "equal balance between opposing forces ". Not the light side in dominance, that would be the antithesis of balance. More importantly however is the fact that evil is key aspect of this interplay. Simply put when you talk about symbiosis, the dark side is part of that equation. You can't brand the DS as a cancer because that removes it from the equation that Lucas has explicitly lain down.

Yes clearly bringing balance to the Force involves stopping the Sith and the dark side, but that is only because by its very nature the dark side seeks to dominate, ergo to cause imbalance. In therefore must be, as you say, opposed at all times, but not by eradicating it, only containing it. It's the difference between stopping and destroying it.

You claim that my stance is somehow invalidated by the fact that the light side is an agent of balance, and the dark side of imbalance. But it's made clear in the Mortis arc that there is no contradiction, the Daughter is clearly an agent of balance in support of the Father, and the Son of imbalance in opposition to the Father, but they are still capable of living in symbiosis if the Son is kept in check, and any attempt at dominance by him opposed. The Daughter on the other hand does not seek to dominate, as it would be against her LS nature, and nobody wishes the death of the Son until it is absolutely necessary.

Now on to the Lucas quote, no it is not literal, but I am not being pedantic when I say evil exists in all things. I'm making a fundamental point. We are told explicitly that the Force permeates everything and exists in all life, and we are also told that the Force manifests in two forms, the light side and the dark side. Ergo. the light side and more importantly the dark side are in all living things.

Or rather everything has a dark side. In TCW's Yoda arc we again see this concept explained. Specifically the part were Yoda must confront his hubris i.e. his dark side. If you haven't already watch the scene, cba to quote it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctoWE_2iJOw

Yoda doesn't defeat his dark side by destroying it, but by accepting it's existence, but also accepting that it has no control over him. You talk about how "tolerating a sufficient amount of evil" is "ludicrous", but you say that as if we have a choice. Evil exists, it can't be eradicated. You beat evil by accepting it's existence, but also that it has no power over you. Not by try to kill it like a cancer, which can only be achieved by pretending it isn't there. That in particular is what Yoda comes to terms with when overcoming his hubris. Because that is what pretending we can all be pure, bad free people is, hubris.

Dark Yoda also says "Part of you I am, part of all that lives." From this we can infer and from that fact even the greatest of the Jedi has the dark side in him, that the dark side is indeed in all living things. So when the Sith were destroyed the dark side would still have been there, everywhere and in force, just not dominant.

Look, check out the making of... documentaries of the PT. Lucas explained it many times that light=balance. Not light and dark in equal measure. He's said this many times and quite explicitly.

Here's one of his quotes, if that is what you wanna do:

"Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe."

A rather short-lived balance... Especially if we assume that Snoke has been around for quite some time.

Originally posted by queeq
Look, check out the making of... documentaries of the PT. Lucas explained it many times that light=balance. Not light and dark in equal measure. He's said this many times and quite explicitly.

Here's one of his quotes, if that is what you wanna do:

"Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe." Right, and Lucas also said that said evil needs to be there, this wouldn't be the first time he's contradicted himself, or been convoluted in his expression of a concept. Fact is though the Mortis arc and arguably the Yoda arc, lay out pretty clear what balance in the Force is, and it aligns with a lot of what George has said.

We can pretend this is some kind of outlier, but it makes zero sense that because of some ****up at Lucasfilm, George wasn't consulted on easily the most important concept in Star Wars for a TV show he was active in producing, and now one of the "immovable objects of Star Wars history, the characters and events to which all other tales must align."

But maybe he was high or something.

Originally posted by Galan007
I thought the existence of Mortis and The Ones in TCW showed us that both sides(light and dark) are needed to maintain proper balance on a universal level..? /shrug

I mean kinda. The Father was 'grey' but really he seemed more light side than anything.

The Father was the buffer/mediator between light and dark--he could keep either side in check when needed. That is the role he originally wanted Anakin to assume in his absence.

He essentially played the role of Lady Justice, with the Son and Daughter resting on each side of his scale. #Balance

I find it difficult to believe that the kind of balance the Jedi wanted to achieve was the dark side being equal in power to the light.

It doesn't seem like the Jedi necessarily care that Sith(and the like) exist in general, so long as they stay contained within their little factions/tribes and don't cause too much of a ruckus. After all, they went a decade(the span between TPM and AotC) without really even trying to seek out/destroy the remaining Sith(which they knew was still alive) in the wake of Qui-Gon's death--and they also allowed the Nightsisters to exist. The only real 'balance' the Jedi seemed to diligently protect is ensuring the dark side/Sith didn't overtake the galaxy. That is what they sought to prevent. That is what Vader's redemption and Palpatine's death 'balanced'(for a little while, at least.)

However, the death of a few Sith doesn't represent the death of the dark side as a whole. The dark side is an aspect of the force itself, after all--Sith are merely beings whole can channel that aspect. Short of nullifying the entire damned universe, the dark side itself can't be destroyed. Same with the light side, for that matter. They have to coexist in that regard. /shrug

Mace Windu.

Supposedly the novel goes into Snoke's background but not much. I heard he was around during the Clone Wars and during the rise and fall of the Empire.

This is going out on a limb here big time but do you guys think it's possible that Snoke could be the Grand Inquisitor from the Rebels show? He kinda looks like Snoke and him falling into that reactor core or whatever it was would explain how he was so messed up looking in TFA.

Or maybe I'm nuts.

^ That theory has been around on the internet even with pictures showing their similar looks.

But I highly doubt it. Snoke should be a lot more powerful than a mere Inquisitor, and it would be very unusual for them to make the big villain of the new SW trilogy the main villain from Rebels S1.