Revenge of the Sith

[Uxi]

Well Macek would be very right about Robotech. But he'd be very wrong about the component/origin series.

[chrono]

The personal made universal

Some critics – science fiction author David Brin, for instance – have downplayed the significance of this moment. They argue that the return of Vader to the Light Side is merely a personal victory; that the second Death Star would have been destroyed and Palpatine killed regardless of what happened in the Emperor’s throne room.

That’s not necessarily so.

Whether it's a matter of cinematic pacing or the will of the Force, the Battle of Endor does not turn in the rebels’ favor until the Emperor dies. In the Lucas-sanctioned ROTJ novelization, James Kahn attributes the rising tide of chaos in the Imperial fleet to the loss of the "central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire."

Gotta love things like this! People SOOOOooooo want to make the bad guys super evil titanic god-like power mongers(think DragonBall Z) and the good guys incredible heroes without equal skills that they'll make up anything they can just to get back that first RUSH of feelings that they got the first time they watched the movies.

It's BEYOND silly sometimes.

It was a personal victory because NONE of the people in the throne were directly involved with the battle taking place further within the DS2. The throne room battle was for Vader, not the rebellion. Not to save the DS2. It was cinematics all the way. If Luas wanted to be THAT heavy handed then why not have the scene in the movie to begin with? There's no real answer to that because unless Lucas writes it himself it's only guesses.

Yes you can be a "central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire." without having cartoonish superpowers of near god-like levels! History is littered with them.

The thing to do with Star Wars is to treat it like any other story. Enjoy it while it lasts. Feel sad that it's over. Move on taking with you something that betters you from it.

[lord_breetai]

Oh I know that... I was just trying to clarify my statements I'm not trying to say that Lucas is wrong... when infact I like what he's saying and agree with him his explnation of the prophecy really made me think. but had I not read it hear in this thread I would have had a totally different understanding even then that theory I postulated ealier...

And I know that Robotech isn't Macross just like (I'd say at least) Splinter of the Mind's Eye isn't Star Wars (in it's first printing did it say Star Wars on the cover? Noooo).

I'm just saying that there are other interpretations that while not as important as Lucas' still have validity... hey there are a lot of things I don't like about the prequal movies but I accept them cause it's Lucas show after all... I'd hate if someone came along and told me I was wrong about one of my stories.

[lord_breetai]

The personal made universal

Some critics – science fiction author David Brin, for instance – have downplayed the significance of this moment. They argue that the return of Vader to the Light Side is merely a personal victory; that the second Death Star would have been destroyed and Palpatine killed regardless of what happened in the Emperor’s throne room.

That’s not necessarily so.

Whether it's a matter of cinematic pacing or the will of the Force, the Battle of Endor does not turn in the rebels’ favor until the Emperor dies. In the Lucas-sanctioned ROTJ novelization, James Kahn attributes the rising tide of chaos in the Imperial fleet to the loss of the "central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire."

Gotta love things like this! People SOOOOooooo want to make the bad guys super evil titanic god-like power mongers(think DragonBall Z) and the good guys incredible heroes without equal skills that they'll make up anything they can just to get back that first RUSH of feelings that they got the first time they watched the movies.

It's BEYOND silly sometimes.

It was a personal victory because NONE of the people in the throne were directly involved with the battle taking place further within the DS2. The throne room battle was for Vader, not the rebellion. Not to save the DS2. It was cinematics all the way. If Luas wanted to be THAT heavy handed then why not have the scene in the movie to begin with? There's no real answer to that because unless Lucas writes it himself it's only guesses.

Yes you can be a "central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire." without having cartoonish superpowers of near god-like levels! History is littered with them.

The thing to do with Star Wars is to treat it like any other story. Enjoy it while it lasts. Feel sad that it's over. Move on taking with you something that betters you from it.

What about the EU saying he was using Battle Meditation to boost the Empire's fighting power? That he had Battle Med beyond that of Nomi Sunrider that his Battle Med streatched across the entire galaxy? is that a cartoonish superpower? Remember Lucas helped with the Tales comics so I'm not so sure battle med isn't a cannon power.

[mikeszekely]

The personal made universal

Some critics – science fiction author David Brin, for instance – have downplayed the significance of this moment. They argue that the return of Vader to the Light Side is merely a personal victory; that the second Death Star would have been destroyed and Palpatine killed regardless of what happened in the Emperor’s throne room.

That’s not necessarily so.

Whether it's a matter of cinematic pacing or the will of the Force, the Battle of Endor does not turn in the rebels’ favor until the Emperor dies. In the Lucas-sanctioned ROTJ novelization, James Kahn attributes the rising tide of chaos in the Imperial fleet to the loss of the "central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire."

Gotta love things like this! People SOOOOooooo want to make the bad guys super evil titanic god-like power mongers(think DragonBall Z) and the good guys incredible heroes without equal skills that they'll make up anything they can just to get back that first RUSH of feelings that they got the first time they watched the movies.

It's BEYOND silly sometimes.

It was a personal victory because NONE of the people in the throne were directly involved with the battle taking place further within the DS2. The throne room battle was for Vader, not the rebellion. Not to save the DS2. It was cinematics all the way. If Luas wanted to be THAT heavy handed then why not have the scene in the movie to begin with? There's no real answer to that because unless Lucas writes it himself it's only guesses.

Yes you can be a "central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire." without having cartoonish superpowers of near god-like levels! History is littered with them.

The thing to do with Star Wars is to treat it like any other story. Enjoy it while it lasts. Feel sad that it's over. Move on taking with you something that betters you from it.

What about the EU saying he was using Battle Meditation to boost the Empire's fighting power? That he had Battle Med beyond that of Nomi Sunrider that his Battle Med streatched across the entire galaxy? is that a cartoonish superpower? Remember Lucas helped with the Tales comics so I'm not so sure battle med isn't a cannon power.

Regardless of whether it is or isn't canon, and regardless of what his intentions were when Jedi was filming, the prequels are canon, and with them, the sextogoly (hexology?) is about Anakin's story. The official story seems to be that the moment Vader tossed Palpatine down the required bottomless shaft, the Dark Side was defeated and balance restored to the Force. Anakin's personal victory was key to the Rebels victory... and incidentally, with the story now being about the life of Anakin Skywalker, the Rebellion itself is reduced to a vehicle to move the plot along.

[Uxi]

Don't get distracted by minutia. Lucas doesn't care about any of that and neither should you.

Though Thrawn also believed the Emperor was driving his forces with the Force. I wouldn't call it Battle Meditation, though.

[Hurin]

I have no problem with other people's interpretations. Especially when stated with some degree of humility or uncertainty. And the degree of humility expressed should be directly proportional to how far into your ass you are reaching to pull out your theory while contradicting the artist's expressly stated intent.

There's a big difference in saying: "I think Qui-Gon really marks the beginning of a new Order of Jedi that may reach culmination with Luke as a sort of disciple of the Living Force. Indeed, it may be the case that the Jedi needed to die along with the Sith in order to bring the Force into balance. And Luke, as a sort of hybrid may represent that balance."

I've come up with a few hair-brained ideas in this thread, all espoused with a sense of "hey, this might be cool." For example: When I said that Palpatine might be 800 years old and the same Sith Lord that witnessed the fall of the Sith. But, of course if someone gave me a quote from Lucas stating that Palpatine was sixty-five, I'd friggin' drop it! Even if I was very, very sure that it made perfect sense.

Contrast that with:

Actually, that's not the balance. Balance isn't brought to the Force until Vader throws the Emperor down the shaft, and then dies. When this happens, there are no Sith left, and the old Jedi Order is no more. There is balance because both extremes have been wiped out. Luke is a new begining, but without the trappings of the past. In many ways, he is the heir to the teachings of Qui Gon, a disciple of the "living Force".

There is no: "Here's the way I see it." Or: "Hey, have you considered this?" It's just: Here is the way it is. And that is immensely more irksome when it flies in the face of what Lucas himself has said and all sorts of "facts" are being pulled out of a certain nether-regions with no basis in the movies, scripts, interviews, or even film novelizations. If you're going to contradict the clearly stated view of the creator, you have to have something and be willing to back it up.

Another prime example of Togo's humble style:

Ok, lets just clear up this myth right now... the dialog in Star Wars has ALWAYS been questionable. During the making of the first film it was Harrison Ford who said, "You can right this shite, George, but you sure can't say it". If anyone wants to think otherwise, I urge them to please continue to make themselves look like they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

This is essentially the way he states most of his opinions. And responses to counter-arguments are even more terse. This tone is just simply not respectful of dissenting views. So, in turn, he should expect no respect.

So, you could argue that I don't respect his views. . . but actually, there is no higher form of respect in an argument than taking the opposing argument seriously enough to rigorously address it, as I have done repeatedly. Duke Togo rarely if ever returns that respect (with anyone, actually). Indeed, he pretends and asserts that counter-arguments simply don't exist or make no sense while ignoring inconvenient facts or his own logical errors when they are pointed out.

Thanks to all who have given me the benefit of the doubt. I believe in firmly disagreeing without being disagreeable whenever possible. But in this thread, you're more likely to be dismissed as a nut-job fanboy than actually having your views fairly heards and analyzed. In this thread, you had to come in a little more ready to rumble because a lot of baggage was dragged in here from prior Star Wars threads. It's funny that someone should mention that I usually attempt to keep things civil since I think in this case I did become a little condescending and uncivil in tone towards the end. But, well, those who would receive respect must also give it. And towards the end, I began to lose patience with someone who doesn't seem to abide by any rules of dialog or debate.

You guys have already covered the "artistic intent" stuff better than I could. But I'm still at a loss as to how people can still say that Lucas's will on this matter is still somehow totally unknown. I'm not even sure how Lucas could be more clear on it. And even if it is technically possible that he has changed his mind since those statements, there is absolutely no evidence that he has done so. It really just seems delusional. But we've been there, done that. And the facts speak for themselves.

But, finally, if someone had said: "I know I can't prove this and Lucas has said otherwise, but I think it would be cool if the Prophecy meant this. . ." I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. I know I wouldn't have!

H

Edited May 26, 2005 by Hurin

[Duke Togo]

This is essentially the way he states most of his opinions.  And responses to counter-arguments are even more terse.  This tone is just simply not respectful of dissenting views.  So, in turn, he should expect no respect.

How about this...

You're an asspipe, pardon my french.

[sabretooth]

go duke go

[Hurin]

Okay. . . so, I was hoping the book explained this, but it didn't. It's a pissy little fanboy detail. But, why didn't Obi-Wan and Anakin just use the force to peel off those little creeper droids from Obi-Wan's fighter in the beginning?

And, yes, I realize the answer may just be "because it wouldn't have worked as a scene that way." But I was wondering if anybody has rationalized a plausible reason.

H

[HWR MKII]

Because they were flying in an active combat zone and using the force does require a little concentration. It wouldnt be too easy to remove the buzz droids because of that.

[Hurin]

And yet, he throws in the bit in Ep III about Plagius being able to create life. so even if it wasn't Sidius, it could still potentially be his master

Or, it could be what George Lucas said it was. That reference by Palpatine doesn't have to have any relation to Anakin's birth. Now, I could see the need to assign it that meaning if it had been mentioned with no obvious purpose. But it already serves as the plot device that motivates Anakin to consider the Dark Side. It doesn't need to serve two purposes. And, according to Lucas, it doesn't.

I was unable to find the primary document that contains the quote below. I would need the hard copy of the current Rolling Stone (the online version is truncated). But it looks like, after giving us the answer to whether Anakin was created by a Sith (it was "no" BTW), Lucas seems to have thrown this particular question back to the fans. This is from a column where someone is really bashing SW (and the prequels especially):

This is from the recent Rolling Stone interview with Lucas, with Lucas examining a plot thread: "Is Anakin a product of a super-Sith who influenced the midichlorians to create him, or is he simply created by the midichlorians to bring forth prophecy, or was he created by the Force through the midichlorians? It's left up to the audience to decide." Note to George: You are 61 years old. Stop speaking like this before you hemorrhage something.

So, you could still be right, Keith. It looks like Lucas has thrown the ball back into your court now. Though, I suppose it could be argued that he let his true view on it slip before, and this is just him having fun with it and trying to stir the pot by re-introducing uncertainty. Can he really replace a definitive answer with a non-answer, thus reversing things and throwing it back to fanboy speculation? Apparently, he can!

Man, I hope Lucas never says anything like this about the Balance Prophecy!

[Duke Togo]

Man, I hope Lucas never says anything like this about the Balance Prophecy!

[Hurin]

Man, I hope Lucas never says anything like this about the Balance Prophecy!  

Well, hopefully I'm safe! I found (via a quick google) a fuller version of this quote here. And it seems apparent by what Lucas says that he doesn't consider the "Anakin Conception" question to be terribly important when compared to the importance of the "Balance Prophecy." So, he doesn't mind the fans duking it out over this particular issue (Anakin's Conception).

Now there's a hint in the movie that there was a Sith lord who had the power to create life. But it's left unsaid: Is Anakin a product of a super-Sith who influenced the midichlorians to create him, or is he simply created by the Force through the midichlorians? It's left up to the audience to decide. How he was born ultimately has no realtionship to how he dies, because in the end, the prophecy is true: balance comes back to the Force.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Hurin

[Mechleader]

BIG SPOLIER!!!!!!!!

This is what happens to Darth Vader bewtween EP3-EP4

[BlueMax]

LOL~!!!

[Agent ONE]

...

Actually, that's not the balance. Balance isn't brought to the Force until Vader throws the Emperor down the shaft, and then dies. When this happens, there are no Sith left, and the old Jedi Order is no more. There is balance because both extremes have been wiped out. Luke is a new begining, but without the trappings of the past. In many ways, he is the heir to the teachings of Qui Gon, a disciple of the "living Force".

This is the best post in this thread. You have great insight DT.

[Blaine23]

That's classic... awesome.

[Hurin]

[chrono]

What about the EU saying he was using Battle Meditation to boost the Empire's fighting power? That he had Battle Med beyond that of Nomi Sunrider that his Battle Med streatched across the entire galaxy? is that a cartoonish superpower? Remember Lucas helped with the Tales comics so I'm not so sure battle med isn't a cannon power.

I view cannon as "If it's not in the movie, then it doesn't apply.". Keeps things clear and clean. Besides the EU is alot of different writers playing in someone elses playground. So it's little more then fanfiction at it's most legal. Besides that quote was from somebody else's opinion, need for SW-fix continuance, and their need for all of the square boxs to fit in all of the round holes.

Besides why need Battle Mediation when you have superior numbers, better training, and higher morale? Really BM is just more pet-theory justification, but done on a legal fanfiction basis.

The Force just is. There is no White, Black, nor Gray. Those are all projected human viewpoints.

It's interesting that people say that the 'good' jedi who use the force for their own needs(name a single 'good' jedi that hasn't used the force for their own purpose) aren't sith, when sith do exactly just that.

[Mr March]

Hahahah, great picture!

[Hurin]

It's interesting that people say that the 'good' jedi who use the force for their own needs(name a single 'good' jedi that hasn't used the force for their own purpose) aren't sith, when sith do exactly just that.

I think the Jedi are shown as not using the Force to control things when Yoda himself in Ep3 says that Jedi do not cling to reality or what they have. But are always willing to let things go. Jedi live essentially monastic existences. I'm not even sure they have any personal possessions.

The Sith seem to use the Force ("corrupt" it, you might say) to achieve power over others, amass wealth, and maintain it. We've never seen a Jedi do anything similar.

I don't think using the Force to retrieve your lightsaber from the ground and using it to set yourself up as the ruler of the galaxy are the same thing.

[Sundown]

It's interesting that people say that the 'good' jedi who use the force for their own needs(name a single 'good' jedi that hasn't used the force for their own purpose) aren't sith, when sith do exactly just that.

There's a difference between a Jedi who might occassionally and mistakenly use the Force for his own purpose, but overwhelmingly uses it for the good of others, versus a Sith who uses it largely for his own purposes alone, and seeks its power for only that.

There's also a difference between making one's own purpose about others and one's own purpose about themselves. Just because something happens to be one's purpose doesn't mean they're being selfish for following it. Conversely, Anakin showed that even though he made his purpose "about" Padme, it was largely about his own fear of loss.

The fact that it's Palpatine who suggests that the Jedi serve only themselves should warn us not to buy that line line, hook, and sinker.

The Force just is. There is no White, Black, nor Gray. Those are all projected human viewpoints.

Saying that there aren't at least two shades to the Force tends to go against everything Lucas has ever said or shown on screen of the Force. I don't think Lucas set out to show that the entire conflict in his 6 movie epic masterpiece is simply due to outmoded dualism and silly human perceptions and misunderstandings. But it might be understood that the light side of the Force is the Force in balance and as it "should" be, and the dark side is the Force corrupted. If you would believe Lucas anyway. But I don't believe that the manifestation of the Force in the very different ways we see is simply just human projection upon something that isn't there. It's one thing to see the same thing two different ways. It's another thing to see two different things as being... well, different.

-Al

Edited May 26, 2005 by Sundown

[mikeszekely]

The Force just is. There is no White, Black, nor Gray. Those are all projected human viewpoints.

But it might be understood that the light side of the Force is the Force in balance and as it "should" be, and the dark side is the Force corrupted. If you would believe Lucas anyway. But I don't believe that the manifestation of the Force in the very different ways we see is simply just human projection upon something that isn't there. It's one thing to see the same thing two different ways. It's another thing to see two different things as being... well, different.

I think it's worth mentioning, that, IIRC, the terms "Light Side" or "Light Side of the Force" never actually appear in the movies.

It's certainly tempting to see the typical good vs. evil conflict in the Force, but I'd speculate that that's not really the case. The Force itself may not have an aspect that is "light" that represents all the things we value as good, and an aspect that is "dark" that represents the things we condemn as evil. As chrono suggested, the Force just is.

The Jedi manipulate the Force in a way that is natural and in harmony with the Force. They are mindful of the will of the Force. They have very strict rules and codes to ensure that they are focused on the higher purpose.

The Dark Side of the Force, then, might represent the temptation to misuse the Force, to act against nature and the harmony of the Force, to forsake the will of the Force and use it for one's own will, for baser purposes.

You can see some hint of this when Palpatine tells Anakin in Episode III that the Force can be used in ways that some would consider unnatural. This is expanded a bit in the novelization, when he tells Anakin that he doesn't believe in the will of the Force, he believes in the will of the individual, and later, when Palpatine tells Anakin that he can have anything he wants if he allows himself to do whatever he wants.

[Stamen0083]

Okay. . . so, I was hoping the book explained this, but it didn't. It's a pissy little fanboy detail. But, why didn't Obi-Wan and Anakin just use the force to peel off those little creeper droids from Obi-Wan's fighter in the beginning?

The book mentioned that Obi-Wan and Anakin were using the Force to fly their ships. I suppose that they didn't have enough Force left in them to peel those droids off.

[Agent ONE]

Okay. . . so, I was hoping the book explained this, but it didn't.  It's a pissy little fanboy detail.  But, why didn't Obi-Wan and Anakin just use the force to peel off those little creeper droids from Obi-Wan's fighter in the beginning?

The book mentioned that Obi-Wan and Anakin were using the Force to fly their ships. I suppose that they didn't have enough Force left in them to peel those droids off.

I thought jedis used the force in everything they did. I also thought they used it to peel off the robots.

[Hurin]

I think it's worth mentioning, that, IIRC, the terms "Light Side" or "Light Side of the Force" never actually appear in the movies.

I thought about making this point too. But Luke does say (to Leia): "I can bring him back, to the good side."

So I figured people would jump all over me and equate "good" with "light." But, as usual, I agree with you!

Edited May 26, 2005 by Hurin

[Stamen0083]

I thought jedis used the force in everything they did. I also thought they used it to peel off the robots.

Which is odd, because they physically peeled those things off in the book as well.

Go figure.

[Agent ONE]

I thought jedis used the force in everything they did.  I also thought they used it to peel off the robots.

Which is odd, because they physically peeled those things off in the book as well.

Go figure.

In ep 1 Anakin could pilot the pod racer and he used the force to do so... Thats the only reason he could do it at all. Just because it didn't LOOK amazing, I think we are supposed to gather that everything a jedi does somehow encompases the force.

[Hurin]

In ep 1 Anakin could pilot the pod racer and he used the force to do so... Thats the only reason he could do it at all. Just because it didn't LOOK amazing, I think we are supposed to gather that everything a jedi does somehow encompases the force.

Well, if you're saying that Anakin used the force to more precisely control his ship as he smashed it into Obi-Wan's to scrape off some of the buzz droids, I guess that's one way of looking at it.

But I think the real question is why, since they were flying straight and level throughout the scene, they couldn't just wave their hand and crush the things with the force, or send them hurtling into space.

It's been said that they were already using the Force to such an extent that they didn't have any to spare on those droids. I don't know that I buy that. But, as I said, it's not a huge deal. Just fanboy minutia.

H

[mikeszekely]

But Luke does say (to Leia): "I can bring him back, to the good side."

But then you have to ask, what does Luke mean by "the good side"? The Rebels? The Jedi? People who don't abuse the Force? I'd feel confident to say that Luke meant to get Vader to join him in aiding the Rebels, and fight for the "good guys."

[Sundown]

It's certainly tempting to see the typical good vs. evil conflict in the Force, but I'd speculate that that's not really the case. The Force itself may not have an aspect that is "light" that represents all the things we value as good, and an aspect that is "dark" that represents the things we condemn as evil. As chrono suggested, the Force just is.

The Jedi manipulate the Force in a way that is natural and in harmony with the Force. They are mindful of the will of the Force. They have very strict rules and codes to ensure that they are focused on the higher purpose.

The Dark Side of the Force, then, might represent the temptation to misuse the Force, to act against nature and the harmony of the Force, to forsake the will of the Force and use it for one's own will, for baser purposes.

Actually, I think I'd agree that the Force is just that... the Force. There isn't necessarily a duality of nature within the Force, a good side and a bad side competing in conflict with itself.

But as the movies seem to imply, there's certainly a "right" way to use the Force, and apparently a "wrong" way to use it. I think the differences in its use and observable effects aren't merely due to human perspective and projection-- looking at the same thing in two different ways and seeing two different things.

But rather it's two different approaches resulting in two very different and observable effects. And one of these ways appears to the using the force with balance and harmony in mind, while the other appears to be using it with power and gain in mind. So I think it's more than just a matter of "different perspectives"... but a matter of different application leading to real and actual differences in result.

I don't think we can characterize the Force as completely ambivalent to how its used and maligned, and thus maligned, chaotic, and "evil" uses of it are merely due to our constructs and exist only our imaginations. Order and harmony seems to be preferred.

-Al

[Duke Togo]

I view cannon as "If it's not in the movie, then it doesn't apply."

That's what Lucas himself has said, which is one of the reasons why I am so wary of the EU.

[Blaine23]

... Yoda himself in Ep3 says that Jedi do not cling to reality or what they have. But are always willing to let things go. Jedi live essentially monastic existences. I'm not even sure they have any personal possessions.

So, you're saying that, in essence, they wander the universe like "Kane from Kung-Fu?"

'Spose it makes sense to Sam Jackson.

[Hurin]

So, you're saying that, in essence, they wander the universe like "Kane from Kung-Fu?"

Ya know. . . it's funny you mention that, that's sorta the way I did consider the Jedi to be before the Prequels. I was sorta suprised to find them all centrally located on Coruscant. . . operating out of a central Police HQ "temple." Sorta too much like the SuperFriends and the Hall of Justice.

But again, that was just the impression I had based on what had trickled out over the decades. But which now must bend to the will of the Lucas.

But, to be monastic, you don't have to wander. The Great Jedi Temple could be seen as a correlary to a medieval monastary. . . the monks in most monastaries didn't own anything, and attemped to live a life of privation. But they had a roof over their heads, food, and a place to work, pray, and write. Which was their role in society (protecting the local community through prayer, and in turn, the local community supported them with necessities).

H