Did Vader disappear when he died?

Impressive bad radio.
Most impressive

Great background research, there should be more of it on these boards.

 

Great responses, especially the research.

If Anakin did not disappear, but he returned as a ghost,do you think that GL put alot of thought into this disappearing jedi thing before TPM? I dont think it was important during the OT really, with so much else going on. In other words, has GL written himself into a corner with this whole thing? It just seems like the whole thing is a little cumbersome and confusing to the casual fan.

 

Based on that research, it would appear that disappearing isn't entirely necessary. (Don't forget about Gui-gon!)

<can't wait to see Bib's take on this topic now>

[EDIT]

An odd thought - wouldn't burning the body be somewhat analogous to "disappearing", or returning Anakin's elements to nature? Might Anakin not have become a Force ghost if Luke hadn't burned his body? ?

Just a thought....

 

Whether you like it or not, Anakin did disappear when he died, because no current sources say he didn't.

 

Good point Trojan_Sock, maybe it is necessary to dispose of the body in order to set the spirit free?

 

>>>> Anakin did disappear when he died, because no current sources say he didn't.

Except George Lucas in his commentary on TPM?s DVD. Is that current enough?

 

I think it was Jedi tradition to burn the bodies of the dead, so the spirits would truly become one with the Force.
Imagine the pyre after the battle of Geonosis....

I think these questions will all be answered in EpIII in one way or another, so we´ll have to be patient!

 

Except George Lucas in his commentary on TPM?s DVD. Is that current enough?

That's funny, I never heard him say the words "Anakin did not disappear when he died."

 

Whether you like it or not, Anakin did disappear when he died, because no current sources say he didn't.

No offense, but that's a weak argument. Using that argument, anything I think happened off screen that wasn't stated on screen thus happened. Did Captain Antilles hold Vader at bay with a lightsaber while Leia escaped? Sure, no source says he didn't own a lightsaber, we just know that Vader eventually had him disarmed and up in the air being choked.

Jedi death and disappearance happens simulatiously (he did with Yoda/Ben). Vader died and didn't immediately disappear, so the logical conclusion is he did not disappear at all.

 

That is completely different, and you know it. No source says Antilles used a lightsaber, blah blah blah, so he didn't. Many sources say Anakin disappeared, so he did.

 

I'm still not convinced, just because it says that he disappeared in the novel, doesn't make it true.

I didn't see him disappear on-screen... Next you're going to say that Greedo shoots first, because the official site and the SE say he does?

 

When did George say anything about it during TPM commentary?

I agree that if he did disappear, it would have happened right when he died, not an hour later when Luke was at safety. I agree with the argument that just because the web site says it does not mean that George planned it that way... Seems like we need to go with what we see on screen.

 

That is completely different, and you know it. No source says Antilles used a lightsaber, blah blah blah, so he didn't. Many sources say Anakin disappeared, so he did.

Put it that way it is different, but your above post was simply stating that the abscene of was the rule, not the presence of.

 

Great post bad_radio. Anakin didn't disappear in the film. I truly dislike the revisionism that has been happening to these films. Greedo didn't shoot first.

 

>>>> That's funny, I never heard him say the words "Anakin did not disappear when he died."

---

[b]The end of the last film is Anakin at a funeral pyre[/b] just like Qui-Gon is here. So I wanted to keep those motifs.

? George Lucas, [i]The Phantom Menace[/i] DVD Commentary[hr][/blockquote]You are absolutely right. George doesn?t say ?Anakin didn?t disappear when he died.? But he does say that Anakin was in the funeral pyre. In other words, Anakin was dead, he did not vanish, and it was Anakin?s body that Luke set ablaze at the end of [i]ROTJ[/i]. FI?

 

" Whether you like it or not"

Regardless of your (specious) opinion of me, I do try to back up my statements, and can accept when a better argument is brought up. I have to agree with the subsequent posts that the "proof" you bring up is weak at best. "Absence" makes the heart grow fonder, but it leaves a hollow argument as well.

"because no current sources say he didn't."

Actually, there are contradicting sources, so neither side is technically proven in this respect.

 

I'm still not convinced, just because it says that he disappeared in the novel, doesn't make it true.

Actually, that's exactly what makes it true. All sources are correct and true.

I didn't see him disappear on-screen... Next you're going to say that Greedo shoots first, because the official site and the SE say he does?


The SE overrides the original version, so Greedo did indeed shoot first.

 

"All sources are correct and true. "

Including the Star Wars Holiday Special, where Boba saves Luke?

I guess this means that Obi-wan and Uncle Owen are brothers despite what the film shows?

Stop overgeneralizing...the EU is not the Holy Grail you make it out to be.

 

Including the Star Wars Holiday Special, where Boba saves Luke?

I don't see any Infinities label on the SWHS, do you?

I guess this means that Obi-wan and Uncle Owen are brothers despite what the film shows?

Um, none of the films say they aren't brothers.

 

I really don't want to see this thread locked because its turning into a EU Vs Canon war so I'll try and resurect it.

I think it was Jedi tradition to burn the bodies of the dead, so the spirits would truly become one with the Force.
Imagine the pyre after the battle of Geonosis....

It does seem to be a Jedi tradition. Obi-Wan does the same thing with the Jawa's, however C3PO just throwing bodies on the fire doesn't seem all that respectful. Anyway, I don't think the Jedi believe that they can become one with the Force after death. Yoda did seem surprised to hear Qui-Gon. And Yoda should have said something to that affect as the casual viewers wouldn't have recognised the voice. Back to the point though, I think the burning of a Jedi's body is a respectful way to say farewell. I don't think it has anything to do with becoming one with the Force. Both Obi-Wan and Yoda disapeared while Qui-Gon didn't.

From a continuity point of view, I think it would be better if Anakin disapeared. It takes Qui-Gon 10 years before being heard again. Obi-Wan and Yoda come back almost imediately and they disapeared. If Anakin disapears it will help support the fact that disapearing Jedi become one with the Force straight away. In my opinion anyway

 

"I don't see any Infinities label on the SWHS, do you? "

"All sources are correct and true...except when it has an infinities label."

Perhaps that is what you meant to say?

"Um, none of the films say they aren't brothers"

None of the films say they aren't sisters either (there's no proof that they aren't transexuals!), or clones for that matter. While I understand the point of view that you are coming from, please realize that the basis of your reasoning, even if condoned by Lucas and TF.N, can go against common sense at times.

I don't have a problem with EU being used to support an opinion, and have done so myself many times. I do have a problem with this "it's completely true because the movies don't say otherwise" attitude. If that's the best that you can do, I personally find that reasoning sorely lacking in substance. I could come up with a million theories about SW that don't contradict the films, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily true.

I could say Vader is constantly sticking his tongue out at Palpatine, likes to smell his own farts in the Hyperbaric chamber, and skips on one foot around the Death Star when no one's watching. Since we never see otherwise, these statements must be true according to your reasoning. Please be aware of this problem when relying upon these "rules of canon".

 

You know full well that it both has to be mentioned in the EU and not explicitly contradicted by the films to be a true source. Made up information, like what you just used, is not canon.

 

"Stay on target..."

If this thread becomes another argument about what is or isn't canon, it'll have to be shut down.

 

"You know full well..."

Sure I do, but your simple arguments are very easy to attack. Notice how your explanations get better every time I contradict them.

"All sources are correct and true. "
"both has to be mentioned in the EU and not explicitly contradicted by the films to be a true source."

Do you see the difference here? These two statements can be made to contradict each other. You've been putting forth far too many assumptions.


"Made up information, like what you just used, is not canon."

Is not the EU made-up information? Are there not "levels" of canon? Must everyone agree with the "rules" of canon? What's the big difference between a theory in a novel, and a theory in a thread?

If you're going to say "because Lucas approves the EU", then let me redirect you to the "Boba Fett lives" thread. If you'll notice, I have been able to argue Fett's survival with a great deal of information and reasoning, some of which may or may not be in line with Lucas' reasoning. To me, this "Lucas didn't say otherwise" is not much better than D_Lowe's "Lucas said otherwise." While neither argument is technically false, they are both lazy reasoning. Quit falling back on this statement, and try putting forth some better reasoning. I know you're capable of it from previous posts.

[EDIT]

Oops, saw Mara's post just now...

"If this thread becomes another argument about what is or isn't canon"

Well, while we are discussing around this topic, it really isn't the point I'm trying to make. I guess I'm trying to say that arguments which basically boil down to "because it's canon" or "because it's not canon" are not very good arguments in and of themselves, and show a lack of imagination, if you will. If you'll notice, my first post in this thread covered both the movies and the novelizations. I don't exclude one for the other, but neither do I rely solely on one or the other.

I hope I've made my thoughts clear in this post, as I'm now dropping it.

 

Yes, Vader did disappear. Someone mentioned that it probably took time for the Jedi's ghost to appear. Quite true.
When the camera switched to the shot with all three ghosts, Yoda and Obi-Wan's appeared first, and looked to their right, expecting someone to appear. True enough, Anakin appeared appeared... (complete with clothing... where did he get them from? Obi-Wan had his own cloths, Yoda has his, but Anakin only had Vader's Armour...)

Oh, I've said that EU is just the author's opinion and views of what would happen. The Jedi Apprentice series of books seem to contradict the words "Impossible. The Siths have not been around for a millennium!". Since I take Siths to be Dark Jedis, and Jedi Apprentice seem to be littered with Dark jedis everywhere, why would one of the Masters say "Impossible!..."?
And even if Siths not equal Dark Jedi, Qui-Gon and the council seem to be amazed that BAD Jedis exist at their time. Qui-Gon himself said "He seemed to be trained in the art of the jedi." as if he haven't fought a single dark jedi before.
So, I say, EU is good if you have nothing to do or want to know what an author would interpret or fill up the gaps, and is NOT to be taken as real, unless George Lucas say specifically it is real. If someone created an animal, I can't just add horns to it. I can only IMAGINE that I've added horns to it.

Oh, Lucas did take up some EU ideas, like the name 'Coruscant', for instance.

WJTW