ST Is the Emperor really dead?

The way Yoda speaks was retconed too , the weird way of speaking was an act to trick Luke in the ESB but by the time of the TPM it was his normal way of speaking.

 

Note that Yoda continues to speak with that accent, though maybe slightly toned down, afterward:

"If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny"

And so forth.

 

Maybe "doesn't make much sense" was an exaggeration, but the point is that most of us have interpreted it how you describe it above since we saw ROTJ. However, that interpretation doesn't render other possible explanations of what we saw impossible... depending on where the story goes, they could pretty easily mesh with what we saw happen on DSII. That's why I said it would actually be a pretty easy retcon; they don't actually have to change what we were shown, just show us how it could have been something different than what we assumed.

 

Yep, this is in the 'Making of' book by Rinzler.

Everyone shoulod keep in mind:

"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work."

So, that change from guru to full on lightsaber wielding Jedi Master isn't a retcon and either are midichlorians since they don't alter any previously established facts.

Keeping that in mind, if Lucas decided (whether in the early 80's or now) that the blue explosion was Palpatine using a dark side trick, it wouldn't be a retcon because it doesn't contradict any FACT, it only contradicts an ASSUMPTION.

 

That's true... when I said above it would be "a pretty easy retcon", what I was probably really saying is that it wouldn't even really be a retcon. It would be showing us "how it could have been something different than what we assumed."

 

EXACTLY! Just because movies changed something you thought you knew doesn't mean it is bad or a retcon. Each movie that was released changed a previous assumption, why wouldn't the ST do the same?

I think it will, and I personally am looking forward to it.

 

You really cant tell a story of this magnitude without retconning things. The major ones to me are

vader = Luke's dad
Liea = Luke's sis
qui- gon = Obi's master
Obi knows about the twins

But as was previously mentioned, most of these arn't really retconns from the viewers prespective, because we arn't told out right untill after the change has been made.
But they are changes as far as the story-teller is conserned. They are executed with varying degrees of sucsess and sometimes nessesity is questionable. But to the viewer they are not explicit changes.

I mean think about what Star Wars would be without the vader retcon.

 

Why am I even engaging you in this discussion?

1) Original storyline means there can't be a rehash Dark Empire.
2) Abrams showed care for existing continuity when he introduced the timetravel-shenanigans into Trek. He did all he could to preserve the existing timeline. He'd probably okay Plagueis, but not Palpatine.

Besides, there are always exceptions to the rule. Yes, the TESB-twist worked. But you should only break rules when you know what you're doing. When the reward outweighs the risk. I don't think having Palpatine on screen is rewarding enough to take this immense risk.

 

Fair enough. The thing is, we wouldn't know if the reward outweighs the risk without knowing the story and its execution.

I'm not saying I think it should happen, just if it did happen I'd understand that it wouldn't be a big surprise. That there is room for it to happen because of the events at the end of RotJ.

It all depends on story and execution.

 

I said it on the older boards I'll say it again ... We never saw a body... In tv and movies and pretty much any other for of fiction... If there is no body, no corpse, no stiff, no cadaver, no rotten lifeless empty shell of a palpy palpy the one and only darth my fricking galaxy sidious, then the are probably not dead, not while there's money to make... Even if they are dead in science fiction there is at least 50 ways to resurrect your villain.
Why would J.j I don't really understand what's Star Trek is so I'll make it about nothing and running about Abrams going to choose plaguis over palp, only those who read the book, like myself give a funk about it.

 

Right. This is part of the genre and part of the GFFA world. SW is not only sci-fi, but fantasy and pulp as well. This means there are an unlimited number of ways to resurrect your villain. And that it's actually part of what makes this genre fun. It's not cliche or unrealistic; it's an essential quality of the genre.

I know everyone loves Star Wars, but when you want it to be more like a realistic drama that obeys the probabilities of this world, you're arguing for the qualities of another style and genre.

 

In sci-fi/fantasy there are volumes of ways to How To Bring Back Your Bad Guy. It could be done. Depends on how it fits into the story, though and if it would undermine Anakin's final moments in Episode 6 if he is.

 

nothing can take away from Anakin's redemption and saving his son.

 

Saying Anakin's actions at the end of ROTJ were pointless is like saying that the Cold War made the WW2 victory pointless. Luke surviving means a new Jedi Order. The Rebels winning means the reestablishment of the Republic. Those concrete victories are much more important than the personal redemption of one person.

 

True, but then the prophecy would not have been fulfilled. It may have been misread, yes, but Anakin was born of the Force and had a special midi-chlorian count. Now, Plagueis may have created him, but that might be a very dangerous ret-con, altering the entire narrative in ways the writers will want to think through carefully first before deciding on such a game-changer. Or, Anakin was indeed born of the Force, which implies that the prophecy was not misread. Either way they are not mutually exclusive. The Force may have intentionally and 'naturally' created Anakin to counter Plagueis' meddling in midi-chlorian science and 'unnatural' abilities. Something Plagueis may have considered and had even been anxious about when 'The Chosen One' had been discovered and arrived on Coruscant. You know, when the Mask (Vader/The Chosen One) shows up, He-Go.

I agree with this, too. But like you point out, this is pulp sci-fi. Not reality. Anakin balanced the Force. He destroyed the Sith and the old Jedi. The others died just prior to this fulfillment. The end of ROTJ does not warrant a sequel, but a Sith with 'unnatural' abilities justifies a continuation based on abilities we have not seen yet in a Star Wars movie. At least that's what the narrative suggests.

 

Agreed. Bringing Palps back would violate the hell out of OT continuity. It would really upend the message of Yoda and Ben and the nature of the Force. Continuity went totally out of the window in the PT, and SW suffered severely because of it. Abrams needs to be very careful with the ST script and make sure it's continuity compliant with the OT. OT continuity compliance is how SW will regain all the credibility it's lost. It's the most important factor to the ST's success.

 

So basically you're saying Abrams must bring balance to the force.

 

I think I agree with this. But not because we haven't seen unnatural abilities before, but because the topic of immortality has been a fundamental theme and plot-point of the Saga. In TPM we're surprised to see that Qui-Gon doesn't disappear when he dies, undercutting our expectation that he will ghost. In AOTC we see Anakin declare he will learn to stop people from dying. We hear the ghostly shout of Qui-Gon, suggesting an immortal afterlife for the first time. The introduction of clones also relates to this theme because they could reproduce the genetic material of one person forever. In ROTS we hear about Plagueis and Palpatine's goals of immortality. We see that General Grievous has been able to defy death via technology although he is only a few organs. Then, although Anakin is as good as dead, Palpatine is able to save his life with similar tech, and for all we know, a bit of midi manipulation. And then, totally unnecessary to the main plot of Sith, Qui-Gon contacts Yoda and informs him of Jedi immortality, retaining one's consciousness after the body's death. Already we can see a very obvious binary being created in the PT: holding onto life results in a kind of unnatural or twisted longevity (clones and cyborg tech) while letting go (or whatever else Qui-Gon is doing -- an interesting question because not all Jedi can ghost) results in a spiritual immortality. This theme continues in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ. It's a fundamental aspect of the Saga.

And now I see more clearly what I think you're saying Immortiss: There may be other unnatural abilities we haven't seen yet that will allow Plagueis or Palpatine to return, justifying more narrative. I would add that even if we have seen all the unnatural abilities (clones, cyborg), that alone justifies a continuation of the story because the real question that hasn't definitively been answered yet is: can the Sith defy death? If so, how can you stop them? It could be as simple as Palp or Plagueis returning unnaturally via technology, or there may be some aspect of ghosting we haven't learned yet. Until we know the answers to these questions, which have only been suggested thus far, the narrative has an organic (natural) reason to continue.

EDIT: And let's be careful in assuming only Jedi can ghost. As we all know, not all Jedi can ghost. So it's not merely that only Sith can't do this trick (maybe); it's that there are specific things a force user must do to ghost. What is the specific thing(s) that Qui-Gon learned that Yoda didn't know? Are their other paths to ghosting than just this one? We don't know the answers to these questions definitively yet.

 

I think there are easy ways around the problem of the prophecy if bringing back Sidious. It's all in how the story is handled. At most, Anakin could still become directly responsible for preventing Sidious from becoming even more powerful or returning to the physical realm, and at least there's always the old "certain point of view" approach. As in, Anakin brings balance, from a certain point of view, through not only the act of killing Sidious, but by the procreation which allowed for that act to occur as well as the continuation and reformation of the Jedi Order, and the passing down of Luke's knowledge to the next generation which uses it to destroy the Sith once and for all, thus truly bringing balance in the end. If the ST is about passing on what you have learned, then that could easily be tied up in the prophecy as well.

 

Dra---, you bring up some good points regarding the focus on the defiance of death throughout the saga. It's a theme that I can see continuing for the ST, particularly if Lucas incorporates elements of his older treatments focusing on the mysterious nature of the Force, including the possible inclusion of the Netherworld. The contrast between how a Jedi transcends death versus how a Sith tries to defy it is probably the key here. Like you said, a Sith Lord would perhaps achieve a defiance of death through unnatural means and abilities, tapping into their knowledge of the dark side to sustain, in some instances, a life that should by all rights been snuffed out (Vader on Mustafar sustaining himself through hate, and in TCW we see that Maul has done the same thing despite literally losing half of himself, and yet surviving for more than a decade solely on his hatred). The EU has plenty of other examples of Sith Lords doing this that I won't mention here. Given that it was Lucas' direct idea to bring Maul back in TCW, it's clear to me that he wouldn't be above bringing back an old villain. The question though, is bringing them back in what manner? Clearly, though both survived life-threatening injuries, Vader and Maul end up losing a good deal of themselves in the process. Vader is forced to wear a life-sustaining suit, a mechanical prison that seems to limit his mobility; when Maul is discovered by his brother, he is little more than a ravenous, rabid animal whose faculties have abandoned him until Mother Talzin restored his mind (and power?).

A Jedi, OTOH, can transcend death through Force Ghosting, and become "more powerful than [one] can imagine." Unlike the Sith Lords that are still bound by the weaknesses of flesh, or if you believe Sith spirits, exist, bound to a single location, the Jedi Force Ghosts can literally communicate with other beings from another plane of existence, seemingly transcending time and space (Obi-Wan's ghost appears to Luke on both Hoth and Dagobah). This part of the OT needs to be maintained, so if Palpatine or Plagueis were to come back from death as spirits, their defiance of it must have limitations that make it obvious that their new existence is less preferable than their former lives---the cost of holding on so dearly to life.

Palpatine once wrote in Book of Sith, "If Chaos exists, then it takes a sufficiently determined mind to overcome it and return to life. Let the weak have their peace."

A Sith Lord can never know peace because they refuse to give up on life; contrast this with Jedi, who are willing to embrace the peace of death and through selflessness and whatever mysterious abilities taught by the Whills, transcend it by becoming spirits. Like you, Dra---, I am curious to know how and what exactly allowed a Jedi like Qui-Gon to discover this path to immortality and teach it to Yoda and Obi-Wan. Perhaps we will have know anything about this other than the vaguest of explanations. But I suspect if Palps or Plagueis did survive, an explanation would be given since their defiance of death can never be considered natural... Plagueis sought to prolong his own life in the physical world indefinitely through his midi-chlorian research, and I imagine Palpatine would have sought to continue his Master's studies into achieving immortality. The question is, did one (or both) succeed?

 

Well stated, each of you. I really enjoy reading and thinking about the philosophy behind the ideas Lucas presents to us in SW.

Just to add, Force Ghosting may have been an ancient art, long forgotten, but recently taught by the Whills to the faithful. Qui-Gon's faith in Anakin, and in some respects even Jar-Jar, make him a likely candidate. He believed in living in the moment, which is well for one who might exist at various points in space and time. The Whills may be acting to ensure balance is the recurring end of order in the Universe. I, for one, would be very pleased that, in addition to exploring the Netherworld, we might learn something about the Whills themselves. The mythology within the myth itself.

Last, I could accept a return of Palpatine, if it is predicated on his reduction first, as a consequence of the prophecy and his failures. But not if his return is as an immediate Sith with greater power. I would want to see how he returned to great power. I think the reasons are self-explanatory. That said, I prefer Plagueis for reasons you've heard me repeat to your annoyance a thousand and one times. Cheers!

 

And if one or both did succeed, it would allows us to explore new aspects of immortality in the ST. Which so far has been the pattern of the first six movies -- every film, a little something new happens in regards to immortality. For example, in ROTJ, we see that even a former Sith can retain their identity in the Force. And this is why I have no problem with the "cliche" of returning from the dead in Star Wars -- it has strong organic connections to the main themes of the Saga: letting go or holding on to life. Anakin finally let go and we see the result. Let's see how pathetic a Sith can be when they succeed at an unnatural immortality (yes, even more pathetic than Vader, perhaps). A powerful message, imo.

As to why some Jedi can retain their consciousness and some can't, Wookiepedia suggests that this has more to do with the difference between the Living Force and the Unifying Force than it does with the Light side versus the Dark.

So, what's important to take away from this passage is how this ability to ghost via the Living Force may or may not correlate to a Sith being able to ghost.

1) Living in the moment. It's not clear to me that some Sith wouldn't share this focus, although we know that Palpatine believed a lot in destiny. Obviously, one can believe in both; would that be against Sith belief? Or would a scientist like Plagueis be more interested in living in the moment than the metaphysics of destiny? I would think so.

2) Relying on instincts. I think Sith would share this aspect with Jedi like Qui-Gon or Luke. Instinct is closely related to emotional response, or the body's drives. I can imagine Palpatine or Vader relying on their instincts more than PT Yoda or Mace.

3) Sensitivity to living things. It was Anakin's sensitivity to the people he loved that made him travel down the path of the darkside.

So, let's assume for a moment these three aspects allow force users to ghost, in addition to "letting go" of physical life. I see no reason someone like Plagueis, or a Sith who followed the Living Force as much or moreso than the Unifying Force, wouldn't be able to become a ghost. None of these aspects necessarily are directly related to anger or hatred. A Sith could let go of their physical form while still being full of hate. The Jedi do retain aspects of their physicality when they ghost -- their personality and sense of identity. They don't let go of everything from the corporal reality. So if a Sith didn't care about holding on to their physical form and instead wanted to retain their identity in spirit form, I don't see why they couldn't. It wouldn't be against logical or nomological possibility; the difficulty would be epistemological only. That is, like Qui-Gon, the Sith would only need to know what to do while dying. I would suggest that this knowledge could be instinctual or intuitive for those following the Living Force, or something close to it.

I believe this allows for a Sith spirit that would be very similar to a Force ghost.

Although I think this is possible, it may be too confusing a development for the movies, where people understand themes of light vs. dark much easier than living in the moment vs. looking forward to destiny. In the films, it would probably make more sense to have the kind of Sith -ghosts you and I have been talking about: wretched pathetic ghosts limited in their attachment to physical objects and locals.

Still, it all probably depends on how strongly (or if) Lucas believes in the Living Force as the key to ghostdom proper. Or if there is something in addition to what I've listed that maybe only the Whills have knowledge of.

 

Amazing. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." I assume Yoda equates the Jedi as luminous and the Sith as Crude. The difference between letting go and the unwillingness to do so.

 

What does unnatural even mean? Am I the only one who finds it wrong that cyborgs and machine parts are stigmatized as evil?
Vader was evil because he did evil stuff, not because of the machinery. Luke understood that.

You know why there are so many resurrections going on in pulp? Because the writers are under terrible stress to produce masses of material every week/month. Sometimes they are uninspired and what are they supposed to do then? Bringing back the old villain is an easy way to create at least some conflict.

One of the few resurrections I dig is that of Jean Grey because you can never know whether she is really Jean or Phoenix. Her resurrection created countless plotlines about identity and her twisted-ness is basically the only interesting thing about her.

But the suggestions on this board I've seen so far are utterly bland and conventional. Villain returns to wreck havoc somehow. Yaaaawwwwwnnn!

 

Whatever the historical reasons for pulp conventions, the tropes have transcended their pragmatic origins and become a beloved form in and of themselves. And they're not merely fun for their entertainment value: they say something interesting about existence and the problem of evil.

You may dislike the conventions of pulp, but this is a matter of taste. Like I said before, because something is a convention doesn't make it bland -- it's how that convention is pulled off that makes it interesting.