Discussion Does anyone think Darth Vader will *not* be in Episode VII?

Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by MiamiJedi, Jan 26, 2013.

  1. Vastor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2012
    star 3
    Making up a really awesome Darth is not that hard, here is one that is just as cool as Vader.
    Having Vader in epd 7 would be beyond silly and braindead and people would laugh at it for the most part.


    [IMG]
    Last edited by Vastor, Jun 25, 2013
    Jedirush2112 likes this.
  2. iPadCary Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Put your heart on your sleeve & this is the thanks you get ....

    I'm a fan of Star Wars that just wants the source material to be afforded
    the respect & the loving care it so richly deserves.

    Is that so wrong, I say?

    Is that so wrong?!?
    Last edited by iPadCary, Jun 25, 2013
  3. The Hellhammer Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 2012
    star 5
  4. StoneRiver Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 2004
    star 4

    You're a mean hearted one Lemmy! :p


    So why are you so adamant that it won't? Maybe you're posting the wrong way of that's the message you wish to convey.

    Are you referring to EU source material? Hmmm, I'm actually with you on that one, I don't think there'll be that much respect there.

    But using the previous films as source material, I think that's a distinct probability.
    The Hellhammer likes this.
  5. Jedirush2112 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2013
    star 4
    Once again, I think the only plausible way Vader makes an appearance would be as part of a dream sequence by one of the children or like Luke's encounter in the Dagobah Cave Like this:



    but you know if they actually film something like this it will make it onto the Trailer just to make us salivate and believe Vader is in the film when he really is not.

    =P~
    Last edited by Jedirush2112, Jun 25, 2013
    kainee and Darth_Pevra like this.
  6. Pfluegermeister Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Except that you haven't done anything to defend that source material at all; you certainly haven't SHOWN that by your words. I can't even tell which "source material" you're specifically referring to. Instead, you've spent most of your brief tenure here bashing the wrong people (particularly Abrams) for things they didn't do and basically slamming Disney for being a company. Oh, how DARE they try to earn a profit! How dare they actually be responsible to their shareholders and customers?! Oh, the humanity! The sheer affrontery of it! And when we call you on your attitude, you claim martyrdom. "I just wanna be loved! Is that so wroooooong?!?" :rolleyes:

    Yes, iPadCary, it is wrong; deeply wrong.
    StoneRiver likes this.
  7. Toonimator Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2006
    star 4
    Malgus the character is interesting, and pretty awesome in the trailers at the very least... but Malgus the character DESIGN isn't exactly "just as cool as Vader"... it's derivative of Vader. It's taking the idea of Vader, but putting a Halo/Mass Effect-type spin on the Vader suit on a Kenner Power of the Force 2 1995 Darth Vader 'roided-out body. It's making another Sith Lord with a bald head who gets burned and requires a triangular breath-mask to survive.

    Malgus, visually, is Darth Malak only with even more "Vader-visual" thrown in. Malak shared a horrible injury & cybernetic device to function similar to Vader, and the bald noggin, tho he bore tattoos instead of massive scars. His cape only hung from one shoulder, and his suit was a pretty simple red outfit, not a life-preserving ebony bodysuit with armor. Visually, not as Vader-like... but still Vader-like. Malgus, like (sadly) much of TOR, is a bit too derivative visually. All he's missing is a full samurai-skull helmet to wear over his respirator.

    If they want to make a new Darth--and I kinda hope they give the Darths a rest for a trilogy--or even a non-Sith villain in VII, they should try to get AWAY from the Vader-visual. Clad the villain in something other than solid black. Don't have him/her have some horrible injuries/scars that requires life support or masks. If, for arguments' sake, Darth Malgus showed up as the baddie, looking like he does... you'd have some TOR fans cheering, and nearly everyone else going "Oh, they're trying to do another Vader."
  8. The Hellhammer Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 2012
    star 5
    In-universe, one could argue that the similarities of Sith armor are due to later versions (that is Vader, for example) are copying the earlier ones (Malgus, for example). While this might be a good final, desperate argument to pull out the truth is what @Toonimator said - it's just a copy of Vader. Same goes for Maul and the Sith tattooos. One could argue that it is Maul who is following the traditions of older Sith, while in fact someone writing EU (somewhat lazily) made those tattoos a must have for all Sith.
    Now don't get me wrong, I love both the tattoos and the similarities in armor styles - from that in-universe point of view. Still, I would prefer we get something completely new for the ST.
    I have no doubt we will continue to enjoy quite a lot of Vader/Maul clones and hybrids all over EU, but the new movies deserve a bit more effort.
    Last edited by The Hellhammer, Jun 25, 2013
  9. Vastor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2012
    star 3

    I know what your saying and i respect what your saying.But i trully think a new trilogy with no Sith will be a disaster, why was clonewars S 5 so good ?because of the awesome conflict with sidious , Maul, vs jedi.
    Also the cool thing about this injuries of the sith you know is the whole thing they have about surving to rule at any cost, unlike the jedi who is selfless and cant wait to give their ife for someone else.
    Also the reason why you dont see those silly swtor helmets on Malgus is they would never do that, Malgus is canon unlike the rest of the silly game necanic siths in the game with clown outfits so they dress him like a asith.
    And yes Sith wear black for the most part, Sidious even calls the black robes as the clothing of their order in Plageius novel, a novel that were written with the advices of george lucas himself, auther said this himself as they
    had to stay more true to this noven then any other novel because it was about Sidious and his master.
  10. Darth Fright Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 2013
    I doubt it, though, it is sadly possible...

    (To answer the OP)
    Last edited by Darth Fright, Jun 25, 2013
  11. Toonimator Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2006
    star 4
    The black robes are just... too simplistic. Been there, done that. Time for a change. Also, I wasn't speaking of "silly swtor helmets" for Malgus... I said all he was missing was a full samurai-skull helmet over his respirator, i.e. Vader's helmet.

    And the new trilogy CAN work without Sith... they just need a really good enemy, something so Jedi can go up against 'em with lightsabers & be challenged. That doesn't mean the villains NEED lightsabers of their own--just something that can stand up to a saber (games, TCW, EU, etc have shown us many examples: cortosis blades, phrik blades, magnaguards' electro-staffs, darksabers, lightships, electro-whips, amphistaffs, all kinds of things--whatever the creators wanna use). We can get plenty of saber-on-saber action via Jedi sparring together early in the film, or if a Jedi DOES fall to the dark side, or the enemy takes a saber from a Jedi to fight another.
    kainee and darklordoftech like this.
  12. Vastor Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2012
    star 3
    Will not work, star wars without jedi vs sith lightsaber duals gets boring fast.The main galactic struggle will always be light vs dark jedi vs sith, all else is secondary, look at grevious fights, sure cool but not everytime,same
    with mandos etc.And no one can dual against a force user, only reason grivious and his boduyguards could do it was because they were machines,and grivious were trained by Dart Tyranus.
  13. darklordoftech Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2012
    star 6
    There's a difference between Light vs. Dark and Jedi vs. Sith. How about Jedi vs. some other Darksiders?
    Last edited by darklordoftech, Jun 25, 2013
    Toonimator and The Hellhammer like this.
  14. Toonimator Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2006
    star 4
    And there's also the possibility that the villains will have the Force, but NOT be darksiders!
  15. Jedirush2112 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2013
    star 4
    Yes, Like the remnants of the Empire or Pirates. I'm sure they took over after the Empire fell.
  16. Lord TW Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 25, 2012
    star 2
    Countless threads and posts have pointed out that not all Dark-siders are Sith. We just know that the Sith are exceptionally strong in using the dark side. But we don't know if they are the strongest.
    kainee likes this.
  17. A Chorus of Disapproval New Films Krampus

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2003
    star 8
    The Sith are just a specifically purposed organization of Dark Side users. They are similar to other Dark Siders, but they have certain aims and "guidelines" that their organization follow which others don't. In other words, there may be several competing companies, but the Sith are the only group with their specific mission statement.

    Sith are a ruthless, terrorist organization determined to rule the world.

    Well... that may be some other group's mission statement, but you get the idea.
    Last edited by A Chorus of Disapproval, Jun 26, 2013
    kainee and Pfluegermeister like this.
  18. DarthMateous Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2002
    star 4
    Are you kidding??? What are you smoking??? LOL. No way Vader will be in the new series.

    When you start off your thread with the phrase:
    "please put aside any logical reasons involving Episode VI"...you completely lose all credibility.

    "Mark my words." Pssht.
    No offense, but your word means NOTHING. MY WORD means nothing. Why? Because we're just fans.
    And a Fan's word mean nothing when it comes production decisions.

    Also, money isn't an issue. Disney will still make a ton of money without on the new Star Wars without Vader.

    Vader died and Luke burned his body. So the only thing that's left is Anakin's spirit. I can buy the argument that Anakin will be there in spirit form.
    But that's it.
    EviL_eLF and Darth Chiznuk like this.
  19. phatdude1138 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 2, 2005
    star 4
    If J.J. adheres to SW filming standards, there won't be any flashbacks or dream sequences. The closest thing we had to a "visual" dream sequence was Luke fighting Vader in the cave. You saw Anakin had a bad dream in ATOC, but you didn't SEE the actual dream. Even in ROTS you just saw him envision Padme crying.

    I DO fear Vader will be back, because Disney and Abrams AREN'T about the fans. Even though there are a lot of us, there is MORE general public. The ignorant public that just knows Star Wars was cool in the 70s and 80s and "sucked" when the prequels came out. My biggest fear is the Abrams/Disney "just give the general public something they are familiar with". Which basically means "to hell with the fans". Films do this all the time: they "rebooted" Star Trek, Batman, Spiderman and now Superman. We know there wont be an official SW reboot, but they may just bring back popular characters which is just a step above a reboot.

    I've stuck by my guns that Hollywood is LAZY! Abrams and his writers took the LAZY way out with Star Trek: "Hey, we'll just go back in time and rewrite history so we don't have to adhere to all the existing content".. Why? Because it's much HARDER to follow continuity. So in typical big film company business: write a sloppy plot and story, toss in Vader, then rake in a $100 million opening weekend.

    Say what you will about Uncle George, but he didn't bend to this "Hollywood" formula. He made the movies the way HE wanted, like it or not. When George had Anakin die and the suit burned, I believe he was making sure Vader was gone for good.
    kainee likes this.
  20. Darth_Pevra Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2008
    star 6
    In the same post you criticize Abrams and Disney for stepping on the toes of fans and yet defend George Lucas, worst of the worst when it comes to fandom relations. Just because he is an evil we know doesn't change a thing about his distasteful behaviour around the OT edits, the outright lies of his company (giving EU fans the impression that the EU is there to stay when he was already negotiating with Disney), the retconning of his own story (the saga was always about Anakin Skywalker my ass) and his trolling.

    [IMG]

    Hollywood may be lazy but lazy sure as hell beats malicious. Besides, there is nothing wrong with a force vision of the past. If the force allows you to see the future, why shouldn't you be able to see the past as well?
  21. The Hellhammer Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 2012
    star 5
    Much fear I sense in these posts who argue "it's all about the money, they already screwed us over, IT'S OVER WE'RE DOOMED!!!"

    Yeah.
    Blame Abrams for being all about the money. Blame Disney for being all about the money.
    Lucas sure as hell didn't spew a crapload of merchandise and books and comics and napkins and toys and... oh.
    Wait.
    Hm.

    Really, this doom and gloom before we know anything is getting really tedious.
  22. Pfluegermeister Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Indeed he did. And then we saw what happens when a man who had wasted decades NOT directing any movies, who had allowed his skills to atrophy past the point of recovery, who had surrounded himself with a society of preening brown-nosers, and who had cut himself off from virtually all connection to and dialogue with the people who were most likely to see his films, got to make movies the way HE wants. And after all that, people are going to assume the worst from Disney when quite frankly we've already seen how bad things can get? If the work we got is the result of having total control and making films his way, then I'll take the Hollywood system every time. Certain companies could hardly make worse decisions than Lucas himself sometimes did. For all the role he played in bringing it to the fore in the art of cinema, Lucas may ultimately get credit for completely destroying the underlying validity of the autuer theory.

    I'm not saying that phatdude1138 is espousing this personally, but since Hellhammer brought it up, I'm really going to have to agree with him on this need to assume the worst of corporations:

    There's a limit to being against making money, despite what all those company-hating Occupy jackholes want people to believe. The attitude they espouse is beyond childish; at some point you have to grow up and join in the way actual human life operates. People can legitimately argue whether this or that executive was doing his job or not, or whether this or that company's practices are right or wrong, but the basic principle of trading things (in this case, legal tender, also known as money) for goods and services isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and it shouldn't. It shouldn't even leave the Hollywood filmmaking system either; it's not the need to make money that makes films bad. I can cite example after example of timeless, inarguably classic films that were made by money-grubbing Hollywood studios, and a lot of beautiful, moving and vitalizing examples of art were financed by greedy Hollywood corporate executives. These are the people so many of us here on these forums seem to want to vilify, simply for being what they are, not for what they do. How human and noble of us...

    And by the way, "Uncle George" was no saint in that department. Lucas himself may have been born one of these "hate the corporate system" types, but when the time came to grow up and sell out, he did it rather easily, didn't he? But rather than accept the fact that that was indeed a part of the growing-up process (or, as he ought to have done, helping to educate the children who had come to love his work about that part of the process), he continued to talk out of the other side of his mouth and hypocritically slam the system that was feeding him, to teach people that corporations were bad despite the fact that he had long since become one. So say what YOU will about "Hollywood", but if there's one thing we've all come to learn over thirty years, it's that "Uncle George" was so all about making money that it's sick.

    And for all that, he clearly didn't care about his COMPANY making money, or about his EMPLOYEES making money; if he truly cared about his company and his employees, he would have taken steps to ensure that company's future success years ago; he didn't. He instead alienated his fans, the very basis of his income, through a myriad of poor decisions made over decades that another, more responsible man in his position would never make, to the point where many fans actually found themselves bitterly, angrily estranged; he diluted the value of his own creation by mass-marketing the brand without providing anything substantive behind it to give people incentive to buy things (3D re-releases of old movies is NOT substantive; making new movies is), to the point where the franchise is a joke to most non-fans and a big "meh" even to many people who are fans. We didn't make that happen; Hollywood executives didn't make that happen; "Uncle George" did.

    It's to his credit that, in the leaving of his company, he finally began making smart decisions, but my point is that those decisions should have been made years ago, when he was still in sole control of the company and no plans to sell were on the horizon; not now, when it's too late to keep LFL afloat on his own. IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE COME TO THIS. Now that it has, and now that George has washed his hands of his company, his employees, and his responsibilities to go get married (to a businesswoman who runs an investment firm and is also a Hollywood executive, by the way; chew on THAT, all you Occupy pukes), Kennedy and Disney have already begun fixing things (though in this case, that's rather akin to them having to clean a huge smelly house that a really bad hoarder used to live in), and I'll take their ideas now, and happily, over what we've been given of late by "the man who made movies the way HE wanted."

    It's not money that makes films bad; the people making the films can do that just fine all by themselves.
    Last edited by Pfluegermeister, Jun 27, 2013
  23. ezekiel22x Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 5
    This thread has TAKEN a weird turn. Here is a word in all caps, can you SPOT the word? I don't think Vader will be IN Episode VII, but the MARKETERS might feature him in A spinoff film.
    Pfluegermeister likes this.
  24. The Hellhammer Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 2012
    star 5
    @Pfluegermeister Well there's that, what you say up there...but why do that when ST already sucks? Haven't you seen how much it sucks? It's ruined. We are doomed. I am doomed. You are doomed. Our childhoods are sold and stabbed and why do I even bother damn you Abrams, damn you to hell for giving us more of the franchise we love!
  25. StoneRiver Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 2004
    star 4
    Yes, yes, yes, it's the end of Star Wars as we know it.

    (Some words to remember when reading that - tongue, cheek and in)