PDA

View Full Version : Panaka the bad guy? Did I miss something?



El Chuxter
11-02-2007, 12:59 PM
I was looking around to find out if the word "Moff" had any origins in a real-world political system and was shocked to find a reference to "Moff Panaka." I was even more shocked when I clicked a link and found out that the EU has said this was the same guy Hugh Quarshie played!

Apparently, all sorts of post-TPM EU have painted a really bleak picture of Panaka. Okay, he disagreed with Qui-Gon. I would've too. Qui-Gon seemed a little off his rocker. I don't know that this is a basis for saying he always mistrusted the Jedi and eagerly served in wiping them out in the early days of the Empire.

Apparently, he was the d*** who found out Padme married Anakin and told Palpatine about it.

Apparently, one of the statues in Palpatine's chambers on the Death Star was a gift from Panaka.

Apparently, he was made a Moff because he had hated the Gungans.

Call me nuts, but where the hell is the evidence in ANY of the films to support this?

bigbarada
11-02-2007, 03:28 PM
Wasn't Panaka written out of Ep2 because Hugh Quarshie wanted more money? Sounds like Lucasfilm decided to turn his character into a bad guy as revenge.

Kidhuman
11-02-2007, 03:32 PM
Thats good stuff right there. I guess the 10 year gap in between the films caused more friction then Sifo Dias

Droid
11-02-2007, 03:39 PM
Call me nuts, but where the hell is the evidence in ANY of the films to support this?

If they can bring back the Emperor as a clone and have Luke turn to the Dark Side in some of the earliest modern EU licensed by Lucasfilm, they can do any stupid ridiculous thing they come up with. The films don't have to support any of it.

Kidhuman
11-02-2007, 03:40 PM
If they can bring back the Emperor as a clone and have Luke turn to the Dark Side in some of the earliest modern EU licensed by Lucasfilm, they can do any stupid ridiculous thing they come up with. The films don't have to support any of it.

Luke had already started down the dark path, so its not far fetched.

JON9000
11-02-2007, 05:50 PM
Say it with me, e'rybody: "All EU is about as relevant as the Marvel STAR WARS comics series."

Droid
11-02-2007, 07:32 PM
Luke had already started down the dark path, so its not far fetched.

Not to turn this into a big argument, one which I've had before, but in Return of the Jedi Luke chooses NOT to start down the dark path. His momentary loss of control was not turning to the Dark Side. He began to channel the Dark Side and chose NOT to start down that dark road. Obi-wan warned Luke he would be tempted by the Dark Side. That temptation was not starting down the dark path to the Dark Side. Giving in and letting it control him would have. He did NOT kill Vader when he had the chance. He chose to let himself be killed than to fight. If anything Luke showed more of a pacifist side than the Jedi shown in the prequels. I hate to sight the prequels because they are their own brand of EU, but Windu was clearly full of hatred and anger with Palpatine and was going to kill him. Was that turning to the Dark Side anymore than if Luke had killed Vader and Palpatine, the primary channels of evil in the galaxy?

There is clearly only one true source of evil in the galaxy, and it is not Luke, it is Captain Panaka.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
11-02-2007, 10:34 PM
As far as his Wookieepedia page goes, it seems like he works for the Empire, but isn't a huge dick. This is still pretty weird, though.

JediTricks
11-04-2007, 10:05 PM
That's utterly ridiculous! Pulled totally out of their ears on that one, nastily too.


Wasn't Panaka written out of Ep2 because Hugh Quarshie wanted more money? Sounds like Lucasfilm decided to turn his character into a bad guy as revenge.He was written out because he didn't want to come back and go through the agony of working for Lucas if it was might be an even smaller part, and Lucas wouldn't give him a peek at what his script would be in advance to determine whether or not it was worth his time to bother coming back.



Not to turn this into a big argument, one which I've had before, but in Return of the Jedi Luke chooses NOT to start down the dark path. His momentary loss of control was not turning to the Dark Side. He began to channel the Dark Side and chose NOT to start down that dark road. Obi-wan warned Luke he would be tempted by the Dark Side. That temptation was not starting down the dark path to the Dark Side. Giving in and letting it control him would have. He did NOT kill Vader when he had the chance. He chose to let himself be killed than to fight. If anything Luke showed more of a pacifist side than the Jedi shown in the prequels. I hate to sight the prequels because they are their own brand of EU, but Windu was clearly full of hatred and anger with Palpatine and was going to kill him. Was that turning to the Dark Side anymore than if Luke had killed Vader and Palpatine, the primary channels of evil in the galaxy?

There is clearly only one true source of evil in the galaxy, and it is not Luke, it is Captain Panaka.Luke started down the Dark Path, he used the Force for attack in the beginning of the film (on the Gamorreans) and attacked Vader near the end. However, he was able to draw back from falling all the way into it, but if we take Yoda's words as accurate, it will still dominate his destiny and consume him - though I personally think he could have to deal with it in the future without it actually consuming him.

Droid
11-05-2007, 02:28 PM
Luke started down the Dark Path, he used the Force for attack in the beginning of the film (on the Gamorreans) and attacked Vader near the end. However, he was able to draw back from falling all the way into it, but if we take Yoda's words as accurate, it will still dominate his destiny and consume him - though I personally think he could have to deal with it in the future without it actually consuming him.

I've heard people say that Luke used Dark Side powers when choking the Gamorreans. I just think people are thinking too deeply on that one. Luke could have known he would either have to have a fight with the guards or just get them out of his way as he did.

By that logic, didn't Yoda use the Force for attack when he threw the guards against the wall in Revenge of the Sith?

Wasn't Luke using the Force to attack when he blew up the Death Star? I guess you could say the cannons had been shooting at him and that he was defending those on Yavin, but at what point are you defending others and at what point are you just doing what you want because you are justified? Luke attacked the walkers, that were attacking the Rebel Base. He did what he did at Jabba's Palace to defend Han, Leia, Chewie, and the droids.

I think people are taking Yoda's words too far. He was warning Luke not to dabble in the Dark Side because it is quicksand and before you know it you are in over your head. I still say in both the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi Luke was tempted by Dark Side, and CHOSE not to go down that path. He controlled himself and prevailed. He doesn't have to turn evil after Jedi.

El Chuxter
11-05-2007, 02:35 PM
He didn't kill the Gamorreans, though, or even appear to intend to. He just impressed his powers upon a species for which might makes right, and made them back down.

2-1B
11-05-2007, 07:15 PM
I think people are taking Yoda's words too far. He was warning Luke not to dabble in the Dark Side because it is quicksand and before you know it you are in over your head. I still say in both the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi Luke was tempted by Dark Side, and CHOSE not to go down that path. He controlled himself and prevailed. He doesn't have to turn evil after Jedi.

Thanks for posting that. :)

I don't know why people take that so literally, that Luke is DOOMED by the end of ROTJ? It kind of goes completely against the point of the movies, so they might has well have just written it so that Luke joined Vader at ESB. lol lol lol

Kidhuman
11-05-2007, 09:26 PM
Well, lets not start this conversation again. :D

JimJamBonds
11-05-2007, 10:06 PM
Ehhh E. freakin' U.

JediTricks
11-07-2007, 02:07 PM
I've heard people say that Luke used Dark Side powers when choking the Gamorreans. I just think people are thinking too deeply on that one. Luke could have known he would either have to have a fight with the guards or just get them out of his way as he did.A Jedi only uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack - Luke used it as an attack on them, he could have clouded their minds but instead he choked them.


By that logic, didn't Yoda use the Force for attack when he threw the guards against the wall in Revenge of the Sith? Nice try, but we all know there is no logic to the prequels. :p


Wasn't Luke using the Force to attack when he blew up the Death Star? I guess you could say the cannons had been shooting at him and that he was defending those on Yavin, but at what point are you defending others and at what point are you just doing what you want because you are justified?He was clearly defending against an enemy that was about to destroy him. The Gam Guards merely blocked his path and didn't attack, it's a big difference.


Luke attacked the walkers, that were attacking the Rebel Base. He did what he did at Jabba's Palace to defend Han, Leia, Chewie, and the droids. The walkers were firing on people and killing, the guards were merely doing their jobs and not even violently. It's a matter of "imminent threat", the Death Star and AT-ATs were posing one while the Gamorreans weren't.

El Chuxter
11-07-2007, 02:31 PM
I think it's a safe bet that when a few monosyllabic, muscular pigs wearing skins and carrying axes (no "vibro" in them, regardless of what EU wants to say) lurch up to you and make threatening gestures, they're probably going to attack.

Droid
11-07-2007, 04:10 PM
It is very difficult to compare whether Luke's actions were appropriate without any consultaiton of the EU or the prequels. The only Jedi we saw in the prequels were Obi-wan, Yoda, Luke, and Anakin once he saved Luke. Yoda never interacted with anyone but Luke so it is tough to determine what he would have done in various situations. Anakin killed the Emperor (I guess he wasn't using the Force and was defending Luke even if he did) so Anakin acted appropriately.

That leaves us only Obi-wan.

Obi-wan may have used the Force to run off the Tuskens. No attack there and he was defending Luke.

He used the Force to influence the Sandtroopers. No attack there.

He may have used the Force in cutting off Walrusman's arm. There was a blaster so he was defending himself and Luke.

He used the force to distract Stormtroopers. No attack there.

He may have used the Force while fighting Vader, but he only defeneded himself until he let Vader kill him.

He spoke to Luke as a Spirit.

I guess by that analysis Luke did act much more aggressively using the Force than the other Jedi we were shown in the original trilogy. But I really think that Yoda was talking more about just running up and attacking people using the Force. I think that Luke used the choke hold to get them out of his way, knowing full well he may have had to harm them to get through to Jabba. He acted using the least amount of force to accomplish his goal, getting by the guards. I don't have much of a response for the idea that he could have distracted them as Obi-wan did the Stormtroopers and snuck by. I guess he probably could have.

I get the sense that for the most part Luke had seen through the Force how the rescue misison was going to go. Otherwise, why not just have his lightsaber on him? Or why bring Leia, Chewie, or the droids into it at all? It could be that Luke knew what would work and what wouldn't. Did he know that Leia would fail to sneak Han out? Seemingly so. Otherwise why send R2 in with the lightsaber at all? Maybe Luke knew that the choke hold would be what was necessary to get by the Guards. And isn't it better than having to hit them with a weapon of some sort?

But overall, Luke was acting as needed to accomplish his mission, saving Han. Everything was done towards saving Han. He didn't permanently injure anyone until he killed the Rancor.

I will just never buy this "Luke sliding to the Dark Side" argument.

2-1B
11-07-2007, 11:13 PM
You guys are silly for thinking Luke was Dark Side for messing with the Gam Guards.

DarkArtist
11-08-2007, 06:01 AM
regardless of the facts, whether Luke used the Dark Side or not he eventually did turn to the Dark Side and needed Leia's help to return.

However, one for the EU Supportors - without the Expanded Universe the movies would have even more gaps in them then before. I mean thanks to EU we have characters like Aayla Secura, Quilon Vos, The Solos, Kir Kanos, Mara Jade. I mean if all we have were the movies then the series would be over, we would have to except the 10 year gap between TPM and AOTC, the almost 2 year gap between ANH & ESB, and 1 year gap between ESB and ROTJ. EU gives this great story more areas to explore while making the galaxy a bigger place to play in.

For all those who hate the EU think about it. the series would be done, and the only thing cannon would be the movies and TV shows.

Also I think it's cool that Panaka becomes a Moff, never liked his character anyway and think he would be a better Imperial officer than a good guy.

Droid
11-08-2007, 01:30 PM
regardless of the facts, whether Luke used the Dark Side or not he eventually did turn to the Dark Side and needed Leia's help to return.

No, he didn't.

And even if he did, it wouldn't address the issue at hand. Yoda said it would FOREVER dominate your destiny, not until someone helps you return. If we take him literally, as some want to, then Luke couldn't have been redeemed unless he died like Anakin right after his redemption, because the Dark Side would FOREVER dominate his destiny.


However, one for the EU Supportors - without the Expanded Universe the movies would have even more gaps in them then before.

The movies - at least the orignal trilogy - had no gaps. Millions of moviegoers understood the films perfectly without absorbing a bit of EU.


I mean thanks to EU we have characters like Aayla Secura, Quilon Vos, The Solos, Kir Kanos, Mara Jade.

No thanks, EU! And Aayla Secura was in the movies and Vos was mentioned so they aren't really EU.


I mean if all we have were the movies then the series would be over, we would have to except the 10 year gap between TPM and AOTC, the almost 2 year gap between ANH & ESB, and 1 year gap between ESB and ROTJ.

They didn't need to show the gaps because they weren't the story and nothing critical happened that we needed to see anymore than we needed to see what happened in between Luke discovering R2 had run off and he and
3P0 going to look for him the next day.


EU gives this great story more areas to explore while making the galaxy a bigger place to play in.

See, my problem with the prequels and EU is it constantly makes the galaxy a smaller place. They just keep laying more and more coincidences on top of each other. Yarna danced at Han and Leia's wedding. Boba Fett was Dengar's best man. Everything happened on Tatooine. Anakin built 3P0. Chewbacca knew Yoda. It all just gets more and more intertwined and convenient.

Oh, and every minor character we ever saw on screen was force sensitive or a bounty hunter.


For all those who hate the EU think about it. the series would be done, and the only thing cannon would be the movies and TV shows.

I would be fine with just the original trilogy being the story and treasuring it for the rest of my life. I don't count the TV shows as canon and am reluctant to count the prequels.


Also I think it's cool that Panaka becomes a Moff, never liked his character anyway and think he would be a better Imperial officer than a good guy.

But there was no implication at all that he was even remotely evil. He was a good soldier, loyal to his Queen. He was stuffy, but there is no reason to think he would be evil or throw in with the Empire.

JediTricks
11-08-2007, 05:31 PM
And even if he did, it wouldn't address the issue at hand. Yoda said it would FOREVER dominate your destiny, not until someone helps you return. If we take him literally, as some want to, then Luke couldn't have been redeemed unless he died like Anakin right after his redemption, because the Dark Side would FOREVER dominate his destiny.That part never bothered me because it didn't specifically say Luke would always be a Dark Jedi, just that it would impact his destiny forever - perhaps Luke would have to struggle with the moral issues forever, or other Dark Jedi would come into his orbit and forever cause him troubles. What doesn't allow for that is the next sentence from Yoda, "consume you, it will" which is a lot harder to rectify.

DarkArtist
11-08-2007, 06:05 PM
Droid :

we are all entitled to our opinions but some facts need to be pointed out. Anakin turned to the Dark Side and was redeemed at seeing Luke in agony of the darkside energies of Palpatine. Anakin died from his wound by Luke as well as absorbing some of Palpatine's Force Lighting.

6 years later with a cloned Emperor, Luke does turn to the darkside, becoming Lord Skywalker, and falling into the same trap that Anakin fell into. both thought that the darkside would save the galaxy. (read Dark Empire from Dark Horse) Leia along with the baby Anakin Solo bring Luke back from the darkside.

as far as Aayla Secura, she was invented in the EU Universe and Lucas liked the character and thus gave her a spot in AOTC and ROTS.

This is not to blast you or anything, but like I mentioned earlier in this post, everyone is entitled to their opinions. Whether you like EU or not, or simply believe that everyone lives happily everafter after ROTJ, the story is still one of the greatest stories of all time.

Droid
11-08-2007, 08:44 PM
we are all entitled to our opinions but some facts need to be pointed out. Anakin turned to the Dark Side and was redeemed at seeing Luke in agony of the darkside energies of Palpatine. Anakin died from his wound by Luke as well as absorbing some of Palpatine's Force Lighting.

I don't think Luke cutting off Vader's mechanical hand had anything to do with why Anakin died.



6 years later with a cloned Emperor, Luke does turn to the darkside, becoming Lord Skywalker, and falling into the same trap that Anakin fell into. both thought that the darkside would save the galaxy. (read Dark Empire from Dark Horse) Leia along with the baby Anakin Solo bring Luke back from the darkside.

No, that didn't happen. I could just as easily argue that the Star Wars Holiday Special happened, that the entire Marvel comic series happened, that the Ewok movies happened, that the C3P0s cereal commercials happened, or that the Star Wars episode of the Muppet Show happened. There was not a clone of the Emperor and Luke never turned to the Dark Side.


as far as Aayla Secura, she was invented in the EU Universe and Lucas liked the character and thus gave her a spot in AOTC and ROTS.

That's true. I forgot about that. Sorry. I guess that is an example of the EU creeping into Star Wars films and thus becoming an actual part of the story.


This is not to blast you or anything, but like I mentioned earlier in this post, everyone is entitled to their opinions. Whether you like EU or not, or simply believe that everyone lives happily everafter after ROTJ, the story is still one of the greatest stories of all time.

I don't feel blasted. I am glad that you enjoy the EU and I would never tell you that you shouldn't.

But from my point of view, I feel the bad EU far outweighs the good, that the EU weakens the story told in the films, and that it attemps to remove your ability to fill in little details for yourself because, for example it tells you who EVERY creature is in the cantina or Jabba's Palace. The stories post Return of the Jedi remove the "and they lived happily ever after" that is clearly implied by the films and creates tragedy after tragedy for the characters to live through (or in the case of Chewbacca) die from. Am I really to believe that after the ending credits the Emperor would return, Luke would turn evil, one of Han and Leia's children would be killed, Luke would eventually marry and have his wife murried by one of Han and Leia's children that turned to the Dark Side, and that Chewbacca would die in a planetary explosion? I understand that authors have to have conflict in order to make a story interesting. My solution - stop telling stories and just enjoy the original trilogy, but I want the happy ending Return of the Jedi delivered to stand. The characters earned it. The original trilogy is the only story Lucas ever intended to tell, not the EU and not the prequels. I wish he would have left it alone and not let anyone else muck it up either.

TheDarthVader
11-16-2007, 12:28 AM
Hmmm. It is hard to believe that Panaka turned bad, but, unless we didn't already know it, it may have been hard for us to believe that Anakin Skywalker would turn bad. Just my .02