Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's true...those teddy bears probably friggin ate the stormies!!!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
That's true...those teddy bears probably friggin ate the stormies!!!

A lot of the rebellion leaders were at that celebration too. They all ate them.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
That's true...those teddy bears probably friggin ate the stormies!!!

A lot of the rebellion leaders were at that celebration too. They all ate them.

It looks like Stormtrooper's back on the menu!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
That's true...those teddy bears probably friggin ate the stormies!!!

Know what, forget the Wookies.

Man eating care bears is way more metal

Well eventually Vader would have killed him regardless. Thats the Sith way. But, the Empire would have lasted a lot longer if not for the plethora of mistakes mentioned already.

Even with everything that happened, things were still salvagable up to point where he was killing Luke in front of Vader. Luke was weak and could have been turned eventually, or killed away from Vader.

And the Ewoks never blink. Blank, staring, shark like, sentient eating eyes. Those Stormtrooper helmets they play as drums - where do you think they came from? The Ewoks have probably been picking off straggling patrols for YEARS. Must have been a hell of a posting.

Ewok's,Star Wars' opposable thumbs version of wiener dogs, the ultimate killing machine.

No wonder Vader didn't step out of the AT-AT.

"You want me to go out there? With them? No way old man, over the side with youuuu!"
-the real reason Vader threw Palpatine over the side...

 SickSix wrote:
Well eventually Vader would have killed him regardless. Thats the Sith way. But, the Empire would have lasted a lot longer if not for the plethora of mistakes mentioned already.

Even with everything that happened, things were still salvagable up to point where he was killing Luke in front of Vader. Luke was weak and could have been turned eventually, or killed away from Vader.

First of all, I don't think that Vader could have killed him. Vader seemed to have little grasp of subtlety, and without something to suddenly bring him over the edge (possible interpretation as a pun not intended) like Luke being zapped in front of him Vader probably would have telegraphed any betrayal in advance. In addition Vader used fear as his main way to gain influence, which is kinda iffy if you need the people you're influencing to help you with a coup.

Back on topic, I see building the Death Star and bringing back Anakin as Darth Vader to be not particularly well thought out plans. Yes, it helps to have a Sith apprentice around, but in practical terms Vader was a liability from the start, and Palpatine knew that. As for the Death Star, yes it served as a powerful weapon and a symbol of power and control over the galaxy. But capital ships like Star Destroyers and Super Star Destroyers could have served the same purpose without needing to put all the Empire's eggs in one basket. It's existence galvanized the rebellion to action where building a new fleet could have just shown them the futility of their actions. And why do you need to blow up planets anyway? It seems like (without meddling Jedi) blockading planets would probably work just fine. Either action would have led to a situation where Darth Vader didn't backstab Palpatine, either by not resurrecting him or by never getting Luke involved in the Death Stars.

But the thing is, "Always two, there are"

Who do you want as an apprentice?

a) Semi-crippled unsubtle rage monster, not as good with the force as he used to be since he lost his limbs, pretty handy in a fight but not good enough to easily defeat a retired Jedi who's been hiding in a desert for years or a half trained kid. Scares hell out of everyone. You can beat him if you have to.

b) Anybody else.

 Graphite wrote:
But the thing is, "Always two, there are"

Who do you want as an apprentice?

a) Semi-crippled unsubtle rage monster, not as good with the force as he used to be since he lost his limbs, pretty handy in a fight but not good enough to easily defeat a retired Jedi who's been hiding in a desert for years or a half trained kid. Scares hell out of everyone. You can beat him if you have to.

b) Anybody else.

Alternatively, watch Darth Vader at the end of Rogue One. He's a goddamn monster.

Also Luke was half-trained in Empire Strikes Back and Vader mopped the floor with him. Luke in Return of the Jedi has undergone much more self-training and is much stronger in the Force.

The retired jedi, who he was toying with as he seeks closure.

Or the half trained son, who he wanted to convert to his cause, test his abilities and not kill?

It's also worth remembering that the fight choreography of the original trilogy was much more grounded in real life fighting techniques (look at Lukes stance when fighting Vader in Jedi, legs apart for balance and using the hind leg to push against your opponent and lunge forwards like a fencer).

So don't assume that just because people aren't flipping all over the place and twirling their lightsabers behind their back that they were meant to be less skilled than those in the prequels.

Also, the original trilogy fights were always as much or more a battle of wills and ideologies as they were a physical battle.

Watch Luke vs Vader in Jedi and Anakin vs Obi-Wan in ROTS. Obi-Wan spends basically no time during the fight attempting to bring Anakin back, in fact he barely talks to him at all. Luke on the other hand is constantly talking to Vader, constantly reinforcing that he is his son, trying to pull out what good remains in him, even putting himself at risk (lowering his guard twice) in order to do this.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
And why do you need to blow up planets anyway? .

The idea is that once you have the ability to do so, you won't actually need to. At least, not after the initial demonstration.

It went wrong for Palpatine when he built the death stars. A big, obvious symbol of oppression and total rule that was able to be destroyed? That's giving your enemy both a motive and a means to end your empire.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think it's more than just plot-by-fiat. The prequels weren't bad because there were plot holes, we liked the original trilogy just fine despite the plot holes. They were bad because of horrible pacing, random toy commercial tangents, excessive (and badly done) comic relief, the whole cringe-worthy romance plot, etc.

Yeah, plot by fiat is only a problem if the big reason we are there is to watch the plot unfold. That's never been true in Star Wars movies, which is why it's never been an issue that the plots have been swiss cheese.

The issue with the prequels is that Lucas wanted to tell a plot driven story. The characters were just in service to Lucas' big three movie story about the fall of the Jedi and the rise of the Empire. This meant the characters were less able to be fun and engaging, they were too busy dropping big lumps of exposition, or doing what was needed to move the plot to its next point. So when you have a plot driven Star Wars, you end up with the inevitable plot issues being much more of an issue than in earlier films.

Likewise, TFA's problem isn't so much that things happen because the plot needs them, it's that things happen because the CGI needs them. It's not even a plot, it's just a flimsy excuse to chain the various CGI spectacles together. And I don't think it's a result of too little control by the creative people, TFA and its flaws follow very clearly from the director's Star Trek movies.

Maybe. It seems Abrams focuses on characters and big movie moments, and he's happy to use whatever plot is necessary to let those things be. I think this works better in his Star Wars film than it did in his Star Trek films. Even in Star Trek there are good bits, as the characters are really engaging, but the big coincidences and generally messy plots detract from this quite a bit. In The Force Awakens the characters are done really well, and it doesn't matter as much (to me at least) that the plot is weak because that isn't where the fun is to be found in Star Wars.

It's also why I think Rogue One didn't work, because the characters are for the most part bland, or really broad archetypes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
But playing it cool isn't the Sith way; he had to go bigger and bigger until he imploded by the very philosophy that got him that far.

Yeah, and who'd want to do that forever anyway? Spend every day hiding your true nature, just so you can continue to administer the bureaucratic mess that is the Republic? Not a lot of fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:
But the thing is, "Always two, there are"

Has anyone ever wondered how strange it is for the Sith, who are motivated by personal power, to have a tradition of investing time and effort into an apprentice that they know will one day betray and kill them. People complain about the Jedi, but the Sith are way sillier.

Palpatine's big mistake was pissing off the midichlorians.

All the resources they poured into the Death Stars could've built a fleet of super star Destroyers, and the fighters to go with them as well, I'm sure.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:
But the thing is, "Always two, there are"

Has anyone ever wondered how strange it is for the Sith, who are motivated by personal power, to have a tradition of investing time and effort into an apprentice that they know will one day betray and kill them. People complain about the Jedi, but the Sith are way sillier.

i just figure it pushes the master to keep getting stronger, knowning that the apprentice is waiting for him to slack off

 Compel wrote:
The retired jedi, who he was toying with as he seeks closure.

Or the half trained son, who he wanted to convert to his cause, test his abilities and not kill?

This!

People cannot make judgements based on the choreography of the original vs the prequel. There was 30 years difference.

And again, check the end of Rogue One, Vader was doing just fine.

The Rule of two ensures the Sith legacy, and that they always grow stronger. That was the point.

 sebster wrote:
plot by fiat is only a problem if the big reason we are there is to watch the plot unfold

No ... plot by fiat is always a problem. It is less of a problem when engaging character development covers for it, which is the case in RotJ and (to some extent) TFA but not in the Prequels or Rogue One.

 sebster wrote:
The issue with the prequels is that Lucas wanted to tell a plot driven story.

If that's true, one really has to wonder why. Lucas very specifically set out to tell the story of the character, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.

 Manchu wrote:
If that's true, one really has to wonder why. Lucas very specifically set out to tell the story of the character, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.

If that were the case then why on Earth does Episode 1 exist when it contributed absolutely nothing to Anakin's character? And why does it go so far into detailing the boring politics of the Republic (trade disputes and embargoes, really?!)?

First, I agree that if someone never watched Episode 1 they would (a) not miss anything and (b) probably have a better life overall.

BUT what Episode 1 was intended to set up

- corrupt Republic ripe for manipulation
- out of touch Jedi Council
- tragedy of Anakin leaving his mother/being raised by people who at best distrust him and don't want him around

To sum up, we're supposed to look back on Episode 1 sadly and think that this kid did not have to become a child-murdering cyborg sociopath - because he started off as a good-natured kid who just wanted to help people.

But he got mixed up with the wrong crowd.

... Jedi scum ...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
If that's true, one really has to wonder why. Lucas very specifically set out to tell the story of the character, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.

If that were the case then why on Earth does Episode 1 exist when it contributed absolutely nothing to Anakin's character? And why does it go so far into detailing the boring politics of the Republic (trade disputes and embargoes, really?!)?

Because they gave Lucas a blank cheque and told him to make Star Wars and they didn't have anyone around to tell him it was a bad idea, he didn't finish the scrip until like the day they started filming.


Also on the ANH Obi-Wan Vader fight, they were severely limited by the lightsabers themselves, because they would shatter if you knocked them too hard. They fixed it by ESB.

 Manchu wrote:
First, I agree that if someone never watched Episode 1 they would (a) not miss anything and (b) probably have a better life overall..

The portion of the fight between Darth Maul and jedi Rob Roy was pretty good.

But he got mixed up with the wrong crowd.

... Jedi scum ...

Epic

Palpatine didn't so much so much screw up as the focal point of Anakins rage no longer existed. Remember Anakins last words to Obi-wan at the end of Revenge of the Sith:

"I hate you!"

When Obi-wan let Vader kill him the object of his hate vanished. The fuel that kept him a slave to the Dark Side. When he stood on the throne room on the second Death Star he was faced with serving the Emperor for revenge (Which he had already achieved at that point) Or saving his family, he chose his family. After all, why would he continue to serve a man who had lied about what had happened to his wife and children? The only reason he was serving the emperor was to save them...so he saved them.

If there was a point of failure it was that in that instance of total victory the Emperor got cocky. He figured Vader was far to afraid to challenge him and it cost him his life. I don't think it is any more complicated then that.

The difference in fight choreography between the original (Well, only real) trilogy and the (Non-existent) prequels is that in the original trilogy it was better. Because the duels weren't about jumping about the place like a hyperactive space gremlin made of rubber (Yeah, looking at you, Yoda). They were about the conversations. Acting, while holding a sword. Character development.

Regrettably I've not seen Rogue One, though I really want to, but I'll believe that Vader's a monster. Is he anything else, though? Any acting going on, talking to the people he's fighting?

If you switched out Alec Guinness and Dave Prowse for Ray Park and his identical clone, had them bouncing about the place, carving chunks out of the Death Star, dodging bits of opening and closing force fields etc. etc. then for the story to work you'd STILL have Vader only winning because Kenobi surrenders. There's no suggestion that Kenobi's totally outclassed other than Vader's boasting. Kenobi reckons that Vader probably is the better duellist by this point, but he's not going down without a serious fight. And Kenobi only surrenders to make Luke get on the damn ship and make a run for it, because that's what the story needs.

So yeah. Vader couldn't easily beat another trained force user. Same applies in ESB. So that's why the Emperor liked him.

He has one fight scene and there's no dialogue there. It is terrifying, though. Kind of reminiscent of the original Terminator film.

 Compel wrote:
He has one fight scene and there's no dialogue there. It is terrifying, though. Kind of reminiscent of the original Terminator film.

Mmmm, and the lack of dialogue except that of his well, victims, coupled with the music makes the scene much more powerful. It's like the fight scene equivalent of the first time you see him in ANH, where he just steps through the door, glances at the bodies on the floor briefly and then just keeps going.